US military in Shannon a problem for FF

Voipjunkie

2 of the independents that FF are courting at the moment signed a pledge that they would not support any Government that allowed the US military to continue using Shannon Airport
namely Finian McGrath and Tony Gregory presuming they are as good as their word on the issue does this now scupper the PD independent option for FF as it seems highly unlikely that Bertie would be prepared to tell W that he can not land at shannon anymore.

Interestingly the none of the greens that were elected signed the pledge but it is party policy

3 labour TDs did sign the pledge

http://irishantiwar.org/index.adp

Akrasia

Voipjunkie wrote:

2 of the independents that FF are courting at the moment signed a pledge that they would not support any Government that allowed the US military to continue using Shannon Airport
namely Finian McGrath and Tony Gregory presuming they are as good as their word on the issue does this now scupper the PD independent option for FF as it seems highly unlikely that Bertie would be prepared to tell W that he can not land at shannon anymore.

Interestingly the none of the greens that were elected signed the pledge but it is party policy

3 labour TDs did sign the pledge

http://irishantiwar.org/index.adp

Pledges and policies are the first things to be sacrificed by most politicians when power is within grasp.

Rock Climber

I'd say he'll fudge the issue slightly giving them something of what they want on that score-inspections maybe.

It's not as big of a problem to be stern on Shannon these days now that there is a democrat anti war majority in congress.
Also with a bit of luck Hillary will be president at the end of next year and shur she loves Ireland.

Dave!

hmmm, the point hasn't been brought up in any media outlets....... I might email newstalk, maybe they'll put it to whomever they're interviewing tomorrow.

The independents all seem to be saying the same thing: that they'll negotiate with any potential government, and they'll lend their support to whoever will see their demands through.

Maybe Tony's forgotten that he signed it I suppose he wasn't expecting to be in this position.

Rock Climber

If you listen to the news at one online on RTE,David McCullagh spoke about it iirc.

Incidently what is the FG position on Shannon? If it's a problem for FF,I'd say Kenny would be slow to turf them out aswell.

DMC

DaveMcG wrote:

hmmm, the point hasn't been brought up in any media outlets....... I might email newstalk, maybe they'll put it to whomever they're interviewing tomorrow.

It was raised on the RTÉ News at One on t'radio.

People were voxpop'ed in Dublin Central today (Tony Gregory and Bertie land), and while its a noble trait, they are more interested in making sure their own area is looked after.

Voipjunkie

There is not just the issue of pissing off george W the locals in Shnnon area would not be best pleased remembering that Shannon has to stand on its own 2 feet these days removing US military planes would piss off the local FF support

If the 2 independents turned down FF on the issue of Shannon it would be very hard for the Greens even though they did not sign the pledge but it is party policy to stop the use of Shannon

As to whether Finian or Tony meant it McGrath seems to me to be someone of principle for example going out to colombia on the Human rights issue there are not many votes in that but he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. And it seems to me that Finian and Tony come as a pair you get two or you get none.

Could this be the issue that opens the Door for FF Labour or might it put new impetus into Endas push presuming he will stop the shannon flights.

ninebeanrows

Com'on the Alternative...

83 seats without Jackie Healy-Rae

those 2 Indo's are pullable, the other 2 could be bribed.

And the PD's could be given 1 Ministership!!:D

Voipjunkie

FF has just started talks with the greens

Matt Cooper has just announced

The PDs turning down FG earlier I presume has meant that option is no longer viable

rickybutcher

I think they'll bottle it. The chances of either possible government telling the Americans that Shannon is closed until further notice is slim. I'd be shocked if in fact it did happen.

Voipjunkie

Bertie has just announced that their will be NO change in the current position at Shannon Airport

Seems like this is really taking legs

Apparently the greens have been taking advice from the German greens were the US also lands and have been adviced to be pragmatic and live in the real world perhaps this is why none of the current green parliamentary party signed the pledge

Lennoxschips

Greens and FF are complete poles apart. I can't see them forming a government.

Voipjunkie

Lennoxschips wrote:

Greens and FF are complete poles apart. I can't see them forming a government.

Remember what McDowell said FF are the bread the flavour is the smaller party

FF don't have any major principles that they would not change if needed The shannon airport thing is different it is not a principle for FF it is just not possible
but on issues like carbon taxes and investment in Public transport or dropping co location FF could go with all of them.

what might be a problem is the greens attitude to Europe but the greens have been threatening to move away from the anti EU position and without McKenna that might be easier

Zebra3

Voipjunkie wrote:

Bertie has just announced that their will be NO change in the current position at Shannon Airport

Betie also said he wouldn't sign Ireland up for the PfP.

Liam Byrne

Voipjunkie wrote:

There is not just the issue of pissing off george W the locals in Shnnon area would not be best pleased remembering that Shannon has to stand on its own 2 feet these days removing US military planes would piss off the local FF support

As more-or-less one of those "locals", I would be absolutely DELIGHTED to see Georgie boy told to FF-off and stop abusing our airport! It'll come a few years too late, but better late than never, especially since I had a PD canvasser lying through her teeth on my doorstep recently!

It's about bloody time FF were told to cop on and take the issue seriously; in fact, I'd LOVE to see a coalition attempt fail because of it!

Could this be the issue that opens the Door for FF Labour or might it put new impetus into Endas push presuming he will stop the shannon flights.

Oh, no! Not ANOTHER reason to regret the fact that Enda and FG didn't get in.....we have enough of those already!

Voipjunkie wrote:

The shannon airport thing is different it is not a principle for FF it is just not possible

Why, pray tell, is it "not possible" ? It's VERY possible, and considering that the majority of Americans are against the war, the backlash (if any) would be minimal. Are we not entitled to stand up for our principles ? 100,000 dead Iraqis is a hell of an indictment, regardless of how much we'd like not to piss off Bully George - it was his call to invade, he was wrong - why shouldn't he have to live with the direct consequences ? Or are we to stick by the U.S. regardless of WHAT he decides to do next ? What level of cock-up or war crime WOULD it take for us to say "hang on a sec, there, George...."

Voipjunkie

Liam Byrne wrote:

!

Why, pray tell, is it "not possible" ? It's VERY possible, and considering that the majority of Americans are against the war, the backlash (if any) would be minimal. Are we not entitled to stand up for our principles ? 100,000 dead Iraqis is a hell of an indictment, regardless of how much we'd like not to piss off Bully George - it was his call to invade, he was wrong - why shouldn't he have to live with the direct consequences ? Or are we to stick by the U.S. regardless of WHAT he decides to do next ? What level of cock-up or war crime WOULD it take for us to say "hang on a sec, there, George...."

It is not possible because in the real world FF are never going to tell George to **** off it just is not going to happen when Bertie has other options.

BTW I do not support letting the US use Shannon but that does not stop me being a realist and knowing that FF are not going to insult the US administration to keep Finian happy when they have easier options

Interestingly McGrath has now said that the shannon issue is NOT a deal breaker not much of a pledge apparently.

Voipjunkie

Liam Byrne wrote:

As more-or-less one of those "locals", I would be absolutely DELIGHTED to see Georgie boy told to FF-off and stop abusing our airport! It'll come a few years too late, but better late than never, especially since I had a PD canvasser lying through her teeth on my doorstep recently!

..."

Did you vote for FF or the PDs

Voipjunkie

Zebra3 wrote:

Betie also said he wouldn't sign Ireland up for the PfP.

Changing your position to suit the worlds only super power is always a possibility with FF changing it to go against them is not

Liam Byrne

Voipjunkie wrote:

It is not possible because in the real world FF are never going to tell George to **** off it just is not going to happen when Bertie has other options.

BTW I do not support letting the US use Shannon but that does not stop me being a realist and knowing that FF are not going to insult the US administration to keep Finian happy when they have easier options

That doesn't make it "not possible"....it just means that, yet again, Irish politicians don't have the balls to make the decision. Maybe "feasible" or "probable" is the word you're looking for ? But it's definitely "possible" - it just takes someone with conviction to decide to do it, and in doing so represent a huge number of people.

How many people ? I don't actually know, because Bertie & Co never gave us the option to discuss or vote on it. If they had, I'd accept the majority decision (like I have to after last week) but that, too, would be too big a call for them because they might actually have to follow through on the result.

So what you're saying is that Bertie is a cop-out ? What are these "other options" and what are their implications ? In another thread, people seemed to agree that without McDowell, Ahern & Blair would have rolled over on the "criminality" clause in the IRA wind-down....where would that have left us ? It's about time Bertie stopped rolling over and started actually doing his job!

Voipjunkie wrote:

Did you vote for FF or the PDs

I consider myself to have some standards of ethics and a healthy people/community-over-profit balance, plus a preference for people who actually set out to do what they promise and get that done, so what do you think ?

Voipjunkie

Liam Byrne wrote:

That doesn't make it "not possible"....it just means that, yet again, Irish politicians don't have the balls to make the decision. Maybe "feasible" or "probable" is the word you're looking for ? But it's definitely "possible" - it just takes someone with conviction to decide to do it, and in doing so represent a huge number of people.

How many people ? I don't actually know, because Bertie & Co never gave us the option to discuss or vote on it. If they had, I'd accept the majority decision (like I have to after last week) but that, too, would be too big a call for them because they might actually have to follow through on the result.

So what you're saying is that Bertie is a cop-out ? What are these "other options" and what are their implications ? In another thread, people seemed to agree that without McDowell, Ahern & Blair would have rolled over on the "criminality" clause in the IRA wind-down....where would that have left us ? It's about time Bertie stopped rolling over and started actually doing his job!

Well presumably people who voted for those who had not signed the pledge or whose party policy was not to stop the US using shannon did not particularly give a **** or it was not high on their agenda to say the least.


Could Bertie stop them yes of course he could will he not a ****ing hope that is why it is not possible

Liam Byrne

Voipjunkie wrote:

Could Bertie stop them yes of course he could will he not a ****ing hope that is why it is not possible

I know it's semantics at this stage, but it's the type of semantics that politicians thrive on if you let them (think George's "Saddam has WMDs" and you'll get my drift)

It IS 100% possible (you said yourself "yes of course he could"); it's just not likely given Bertie's chicken-out track record.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/possible
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impossible
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unlikely

Voipjunkie

Liam Byrne wrote:

I know it's semantics at this stage, but it's the type of semantics that politicians thrive on if you let them (think George's "Saddam has WMDs" and you'll get my drift)

It IS 100% possible (you said yourself "yes of course he could"); it's just not likely given Bertie's chicken-out track record.

]

No it is because bertie and co see nothing wrong with the US using Shannon and they are more concerned with helping the US to give a **** about the iraqis
There is also the fact that while you may not agree with them there are a sizable number of people in the area of shannon who believe that there is nothing wrong with profiting on the backs of other peoples misery and they vote FF.

So it is not possible that FF will change tack to accomodate an independent TD from Dublin McGrath has obviously recognised this as well maybe if he was FFs only hope they might do it because we all know that FF would seel their mother to stay in power but FF have other options and it is far easier to take those than deal with an irate white house and a back lash from those in the area. So while I can see FF dropping co location if needed dropping Bertie if they had to putting themselves on the wrong side of the US they will not do end of story.

SeanW

Would you blame them? The U.S. is one of our main trading partners, and has a whole bunch of US multinationals providing jobs here. And of course there's the fact that Shannon Airport has to survive on its own now - and for the good of the country too because the policies of the past hurt Ireland by deliberately harming Dublin.

There's too much at stake to just say "U.S. out of Shannon." Of course there is always the problem of these "extraordinary rendition" flights and what's going with those. My own view is that the planes should be inspected by the Army or senior Garda, to make sure there's nothing contrary to Irish or International law being carried therein.

It's only if the Americans object to a system of random inspections that we have a problem.

karen3212

SeanW wrote:

My own view is that the planes should be inspected by the Army or senior Garda, to make sure there's nothing contrary to Irish or International law being carried therein.

It's only if the Americans object to a system of random inspections that we have a problem.

I like that idea, as a start.

For the poster who sited 100,000 civilians, jaysus that really popped out at me, cause I remember even fox had a red banner with 250,000 alleged deaths on screen recently. Obviously alleged though.

What airport would the US use, if they couldn't use Shannon?

It makes me so angry that they can do whatever they like to whomever they like. It kills me that they can get away with it. I am so disgusted, I think New Zeland stood up to them on their own over something before, why can't we.

billy the squid

Rock Climber wrote:

If you listen to the news at one online on RTE,David McCullagh spoke about it iirc.

Incidently what is the FG position on Shannon? If it's a problem for FF,I'd say Kenny would be slow to turf them out aswell.

Kenny would be more than happy to stop US military flights at Shannon...as long as they went into knock instead.

lostexpectation

Rock Climber wrote:

I'd say he'll fudge the issue slightly giving them something of what they want on that score-inspections maybe.

It's not as big of a problem to be stern on Shannon these days now that there is a democrat anti war majority in congress.
Also with a bit of luck Hillary will be president at the end of next year and shur she loves Ireland.

The dems want to keep a garrison force in Iraq, and just voted in the funding( I don't think the even got the the bencmarks they were talking about let alone a timetable)

anyway random inspections of all private jets especially CIA ones would be one thing, that relates to rendition theres the bigger problem of the mass troop transport using civilian and military planes, what even small step could be made on that I don't know? they could firm up there promise to operate only under UN agreement but then that what the were supposed to before but they let the troops mass before the Iraq and how do we know the troops passing through today are not part of Iranian attack plan rather then part of the now UN mandated Iraq occupation.

it seems mcgrath ahs backed tracked on it being a crucial issue, he should say something like he wants to get shannon profitable without having to depend on military

redspider

Its a dealbreaker for the Green's from what I'm hearing (ie: they want US flights stopped), and most likely for Tony Gregory as well.

That leaves:

FF+PD+3 Inds = 78 + 2 + 3 = 83

and not enough to form a Government, never mind a stable one, with or without McGrath bending his scruples on it.

Ireland dont need these US military flights. The opinion of the US people is now something like 75% against the Iraq war, and businesses have always been more liberal in their approaches and less right-wing in terms of dealing with problematic and dipolamtic/political situations. Most of the US managers in the US companies over here and those with executive powers back in the US couldnt give 2 hoots whether Ireland allows US flights to land at Shannon or not. They are in the main equally concerned with rendition flights and many of them are equally concerned about the US's military spread throughout the world.

One use of having the US flights was that Ireland could trade that favour for other favours, such as perhaps illegal Irish imigrants, tax laws (ie: low tax in Ireland for US companies, not getting taxed in the US), ease of immigration to the US, etc. Also perhaps many of he Irish-American politicians would have liked Ireland to help out in the 'war effort' and the 'war against terrorism'.

Has Ireland a backbone? we will see .....

Redspider

ateam

I can't see this being an issue at all. At the end of the day Fianna Fail will dictate the nature of the coalition because they have the highest number of seats. If the Greens ever want some of their polices implemented, they have to compromise.

Zebra3

Do people seriously believe that US MNCs will decide to stay here or not on the basis of the availability of Shannon to the US war machine?

They're here to make money-end of story.

redspider

ateam wrote:

At the end of the day Fianna Fail will dictate the nature of the coalition because they have the highest number of seats.

dictate !=

FF = 78
FF+PD = 80

FG+Lab+GP = 51+20+6 = 77


I dont think there is anyone dictating the outcome, because if there was, it would have been done and dusted after a couple of days. You see, all these small parties have in fact a de facto veto on forming the next government with the current numbers, especially if no-one wants to include SF. Its all down to negotiation and how much each party wants it. If FF start dictating terms, they will fail to form a majority and they know that, given the state of the numbers.

Everything is up for negotiation ..... but there is no clear majority as things stand.

Redspider

ateam

redspider wrote:

dictate !=

FF = 78
FF+PD = 80

FG+Lab+GP = 51+20+6 = 77


I dont think there is anyone dictating the outcome, because if there was, it would have been done and dusted after a couple of days. You see, all these small parties have in fact a de facto veto on forming the next government with the current numbers, especially if no-one wants to include SF. Its all down to negotiation and how much each party wants it. If FF start dictating terms, they will fail to form a majority and they know that, given the state of the numbers.

Everything is up for negotiation ..... but there is no clear majority as things stand.

Redspider

I see your point. But the figures speak for themselves. FF have the majority of seats and are therefore in a much more commanding position than Fine Gael. Bertie is a master of negotiation, so there is no problem there.

Húrin

SeanW wrote:

Would you blame them? The U.S. is one of our main trading partners, and has a whole bunch of US multinationals providing jobs here.

I have never understood this argument. Why will the US multinationals care if the Irish government kicks the US military out of shannon? I don't think that this is a reason why they are continuing to do business in Ireland.

Liam Byrne

karen3212 wrote:

For the poster who sited 100,000 civilians, jaysus that really popped out at me, cause I remember even fox had a red banner with 250,000 alleged deaths on screen recently.

That would be me, and I was quoting a figure that I'd seen a while back. If the Bush-propaganda-pushing Fox "News :rolleyes: " is saying 250,000, you could probably put a bet on that the actual figure is probably around 500,000.

I was just

What airport would the US use, if they couldn't use Shannon?

Who cares ? Maybe there is a country left somewhere that doesn't care what happens to innocent people as long as George and the oil barons are kept happy, but even the obvious option of the UK is now looking iffy now that Bush's Andrex substitute - Blair - is on the way out. It doesn't look like Gordon Brown or public opinion there supports the current level of involvement in an illegal war, let alone supporting additional involvement.

Maybe a decent compromise would be to have compulsory, random searches without any notice, but to be honest I wouldn't put it past Bertie to give George & Co a call in advance of each one, just to make sure that he wouldn't be put on the spot.

Best option is for McGrath and the Greens to stand their ground; who knows - the rest of the world (and a lot of the war-sickened Americans, many of whom are presumably involved in large companies) might actually applaud us for standing up to the bullies; that would only be a bonus though - regardless of the outcome we should do what is right.

redspider

ateam wrote:

But the figures speak for themselves. FF have the majority of seats and are therefore in a much more commanding position than Fine Gael. Bertie is a master of negotiation, so there is no problem there.

Well, the difference between FF and FG+Lab+GP is 1. That is not commanding. The difference between FF+PD and FG+Lab+GP is 3, and still not enough, again, not commanding.

Looking at the track record of 2002, when FF had 81 and only needed 3 of the PD's 8, FF 'traded' away two key ministries (Justice and Trade/Industry, then Health) plus the Tanaiste position and junior ministries (if they count) for just getting 3 votes from the PD's out of their 8. If that is a 'master of negotiation' then I'm a chinaman (discrimination not implied!). The facts of the matter is that the PD's got far more out of FF than FF got from the PD's.

Typically, parties that need others more tend to give away more, and when the majority is slim, which looks likely no matter who forms a government, then the threat to bring it down is there and more of a realistic risk. I dont envy FF in their negotiation position at all.

But phrases like 'no problem' and 'dictate' do not reflect the real negotiating situation.

Who knows, maybe FF think that they could do better in another quick election. FG certainly do I would expect (maybe an FGer knows?), whether that's right or wrong only time will tell, and Lab and GP might be willing to give it another bash. The turnout may be less the 2nd time, who knows how that will affect the vote. I would expect a lot of 'spin' from both sides and all parties.

> Why will the US multinationals care if the Irish government kicks the US military out of shannon? I don't think that this is a reason why they are continuing to do business in Ireland.

Correct, they dont care. Yet this is the line that Bertie and Michael Martin and others (Harney, O'Donoghue, ministers, etc) spew out on a regular basis. Ah sure, didnt Bertie get a 'promise' from Dubya that the CIA flights are kosher. Sure didnt he aks him himself. And how many US soldiers have gone through Shannon never to return? Never mind the effects of what they did on the Iraqi's!

As it happens, the US Chamber of Commerce (I think that's what they're called, I have their business card somewhere, they represent the MNC's) are embarassed by the Irish Government's stated position.

This is a point of principle to concede on FF's part, so it will be interesting if they are willing to trade that or not. It is unlikely.

Speaking of 'dictate', isnt there a vast majority of the population that want these flights stopped, couldnt we hold a referendum on the matter, or are FF (not the only party) afraid of some real democracy?

Redspider

ateam

FG+Labour+Greens+PDs+Independents = 84

That's 4 parties and 5 individual independents with different political backgrounds and needs. Not to mention the difference between the 4 parties(Labour and the PDs for example). Looking at it in terms of the national interest, this would be a hugely unstable government. If a party or independent decides to withdraw their support, the government will collapse.

tck

U.S companies ain't going to pull out over Shannon - we practically pay them to stay in Ireland, the tax is so low.

And if they did, well the irish people can pull through it - we've done so in the past. And to tell you the truth I'd rather sacrifice a profiteering company over human lives.

And doesn't our constitution say no weapons through our airport? there's FOI requests showing chemical agents being brought through let alone guns.

It's a shame, USA says jump and Ireland says how high.

There's two independent TD's that FF banked on that won't go in with them over Shannon.

Looks like they'll end corporate donations before Shannon.

colindkavanagh

Section 13 of the Green Party manifesto states:
"end the use of Shannon Airport by US military forces involved in the war in Iraq:
insist that any aircraft suspected of involvement in illegal movement of prisoners must be searched"

I know parties especially in a coalition tend to break their manifesto's anyway, but the Green Party being to the left like to think of themselves as being honest. I think the war in Iraq and the use of Shannon Airport would be a big deal for a lot of Green voters.

Labour also say in their manifesto:
"Furthermore, in Government we will not allow Shannon Airport or any other Irish facilities to be used for the prosecution of any war, or military preparation for such, outside of international law, international humanitarian law, or in breach of the Charter of the United Nations"

The Green Party position is much clearer, Labour, if they did go into coalition, could and probably will argue that the UN now back the efforts in Iraq and therefore the US involvement is nolonger illegal. I'm sure it'll sicken a lot of people who carried Lab banners on the anti-war marches around the country.

Liam Byrne

I had a listen to Clare FM discussing this this morning, and some consultant guy from the airport indicated that he was delighted that Bertie had used an international stage to restate that this issue was not open to negotiation!

Of course, I think the presenter introduced him as being someone from FF......

Where in the hell is Bertie getting his "I'm not changing my position" from ? Surely even someone as out-of-touch as him knows that there's very few in favour of the U.S. using Shannon to invade and blow the crap out of Iraq ? OK, maybe there are a lot of people who couldn't care less, and might be a lot more interested in things that affect their lives more directly, but I'd say the majority of people are completely against it ?

Or am I wrong ? Is there anyone here actually in favour of it ?

Here's hoping that this issue cropping up will have 2 benefits; (1) we get disassociated from the illegal war and (2) Bertie fails to create a coalition because of his ignorant, inexcusable and infathomable refusal to move on the issue, so we either get FG in or we get another election.....

But of those 2, us not being implicit in the killing of thousands more innocent people is actually the bigger picture - the other one is only a side-benefit, and I'd put up with just getting option 1 if Bertie cops himself on.....

Zebra3

Liam Byrne wrote:

Where in the hell is Bertie getting his "I'm not changing my position" from ? Surely even someone as out-of-touch as him knows that there's very few in favour of the U.S. using Shannon to invade and blow the crap out of Iraq ? OK, maybe there are a lot of people who couldn't care less, and might be a lot more interested in things that affect their lives more directly, but I'd say the majority of people are completely against it ?

Or am I wrong ? Is there anyone here actually in favour of it ?

It's like when the No vote came in on the Nice Treaty. Ahern was more worried about doing what foreign politicans wanted Ireland's position to be as opposed to the people who voted him in and who pay his wages.

What a fantastic democrat. :rolleyes:

Seth Brundle

Sure Bertie is so embarrased by the fact that we manually count out votes and how that looks internationally!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055083789

RedPlanet

SeanW wrote:

The U.S. is one of our main trading partners, and has a whole bunch of US multinationals providing jobs here.

Interesting choice of words SeanW.
Are they "giving" us jobs from the goodness of their hearts? Or are they here to capitalize on our tax policies and will move to another country when they see a better deal?

SeanW

I don't like the Iraq war any more than the next man, but we have to be realistic. It isn't as simple as "US out of Shannon." Realpolitik does get in the way.

1: If we wanted to be idealistic about the Iraq war and get the US armed services out of Shannon Airport, the time to do it was back in 2003 when this whole unfortunate business started. The war has already started, and become a low-intensity conflict. On a timeline, kicking the US out of Shannon now would have no effect.
2: If we forced the U.S. to find a new stopover point, they'd probably move to a military airfield in the U.K. Geographically, kicking the US out of Shannon would have no effect.
3: The US armed forces stopover provides justification and business for Shannon Airport. This is key. In the past, the promotion of Shannon Airport was a national priority, not just the imposed "stopover" that drove the cost of providing transatlantic service to Dublin skyward, but also other decisions like to build Dublin Airports main runway to only 2.637 kilometres, the shortest of any capital city in Europe, this was done to try to force large or heavily laden planes to unload at Shannon, but planes from the East unloaded in Manchester. When Aer Rianta was broken up, guess who carried Shannon's debts? That's right, Dublin Airport. Past policy, lead by professional Western whingers, has been to promote Shannon often at the expense of damanging Dublin.

If a major customer of Shannon, like the U.S. military were to pull out, you can bet the professional whingers in the West would be screaming that the West and Shannon is left to die, demanding God knows what, and probably getting it too. Since Dublin Airport is about to go into some serious redevelopment (planning app. in for a new runway! Terminal 2 etc), that cannot be allowed to happen under any circumstances. Maybe in 2011 or so when Dublin has a world-class airport, we could kick the U.S. out of Shannon and tell the whingers to jump in the river, but until then its an absolute national imperitive that Dublin Airport be allowed to develop in a Muppet-Free Zone. Which means keeping the professional whingers in the West quiet at any cost for years to come.

4: The U.S. government would become somewhat hostile to Ireland if we suddenly pulled the rug under their war-machine. The most likely consequence would be that diplomatic relations between both countries would be much frostier. That's something we really don't need.
5: Just because the Democratics control Congress doesn't mean there's been a sea-change. For a starters, Bush and his neocons still have the White House, and there's no guarantee the Republicans will be turfed out in 2008. Even so, the Democrats rarely offer anything anyway dissimilar to the Republicans (all but one voted for the Patriot Act in Oct 2001 for example). The U.S. still fighting wars other than Iraq (Afghanistan?). Michael McDowells words (the Left, hard Left and Left overs) come to mind only in the U.S. it's the center-Right, the hard Right and the Right over the Edge. Generally anyway.

That said, we don't have to just sit back and do nothing. It's time some hard questions were asked of the CIA. My main concern about the U.S. using Shannon is these "rendition" flights. Personally, I draw the line at torture of people who have not been convicted of any crime. It's not enough to take the CIAs word that no Irish or International laws were violated by CIA flights through Shannon. The Minister for Defense should now ideally announce a programme of random, unannounced inspections.

is_that_so

Much of the answer to this question will depend on how FF can lock the potential partners into a deal. In other words how strongly the like of McGrath,Gregory and the Greens are prepared to go. Although the Independents might lose some credibility, provided that what was secured was worth trumpeting about , then they could live with it. There is also the fact that , in 12 months time Bush will be out and the US may start looking at ways to get out of it all. Who knows, that may even happen before then, thus eliminating that headache.

The Greens have a more difficult problem given that they represent the electorate as a whole and their members. It might be something that they could either swallow or sell.

Yes there is realpolitik at work but excluding the PDs some of the other possible candidates actually do have principles.

I wouldn't expect it to scupper a deal but I could see the reneging on whatever was agreed giving us a new election.

Liam Byrne

SeanW wrote:

I don't like the Iraq war any more than the next man, but we have to be realistic.

1: If we wanted to be idealistic about the Iraq war and get the US armed services out of Shannon Airport, the time to do it was back in 2003 when this whole unfortunate business started.

I agree completely, but don't use the word "unfortunate" when referring to Iraq - something that's "unfortunate" is an accident, or a side-effect, not a deliberate antagonistic act.

2: If we forced the U.S. to find a new stopover point, they'd probably move to a military airfield in the U.K. Geographically, kicking the US out of Shannon would have no effect.

....and if we had a strong offensive that forced drug dealers to use UK airports instead of ours, that might "have no effect" either - does that mean we shouldn't try ?

3: The US armed forces stopover provides justification and business for Shannon Airport.

"justification" for Shannon Airport ? Please explain, otherwise that comes across as condescendingly patronising - I almost didn't read the rest of your "point" as a result.

[runway length] was done to try to force large or heavily laden planes to unload at Shannon

Past policy, lead by professional Western whingers, has been to promote Shannon often at the expense of damanging Dublin.

Bull****. If that were indeed the case, there would be no need for Dublin to be looking for a second terminal, since the country would use Shannon and Cork. The provision of flights, and the cost, are the key, and RyanAir has started new routes from Shannon to attempt to counteract the delays and costs with Dublin Airport, if you're looking for "professional whingers", find a mirror!

If a major customer of Shannon, like the U.S. military were to pull out, you can bet the professional whingers in the West would be screaming that the West and Shannon is left to die, demanding God knows what, and probably getting it too. Since Dublin Airport is about to go into some serious redevelopment (planning app. in for a new runway! Terminal 2 etc), that cannot be allowed to happen under any circumstances. Maybe in 2011 or so when Dublin has a world-class airport, we could kick the U.S. out of Shannon and tell the whingers to jump in the river, but until then its an absolute national imperitive that Dublin Airport be allowed to develop in a Muppet-Free Zone. Which means keeping the professional whingers in the West quiet at any cost for years to come.

Christ, have you a chip on your shoulder or what ? I don't know any professional whingers, so I don't know what they'd be screaming if the U.S. were told to feck off, but I know that most normal people want this abuse of our facilities, and the resulting involvement of us in the war, to stop.

4: The U.S. government would become somewhat hostile to Ireland if we suddenly pulled the rug under their war-machine. The most likely consequence would be that diplomatic relations between both countries would be much frostier. That's something we really don't need.

Naw - much better to sell our soul and our ethics, and to hell with those that we (sorry, Bertie & Co) have helped to their deaths.

5: Just because the Democratics control Congress doesn't mean there's been a sea-change. For a starters, Bush and his neocons still have the White House, and there's no guarantee the Republicans will be turfed out in 2008. Even so, the Democrats rarely offer anything anyway dissimilar to the Republicans (all but one voted for the Patriot Act in Oct 2001 for example). The U.S. still fighting wars other than Iraq (Afghanistan?). Michael McDowells words (the Left, hard Left and Left overs) come to mind only in the U.S. it's the center-Right, the hard Right and the Right over the Edge. Generally anyway.

You admit that they are aggressive, war-mongering neocons, but you still think we should stand by them ?

That said, we don't have to just sit back and do nothing. It's time some hard questions were asked of the CIA. My main concern about the U.S. using Shannon is these "rendition" flights. Personally, I draw the line at torture of people who have not been convicted of any crime. It's not enough to take the CIAs word that no Irish or International laws were violated by CIA flights through Shannon. The Minister for Defense should now ideally announce a programme of random, unannounced inspections.

An improvement in the rendition flights issue problem would be significant, but we would still be involved in an illegal war.

Since you obviously favour good relations with warmongers over ethics, let me put it this way; if the flights were going through your beloved Dublin Airport, and the suggestion from a few years ago that airports involved in the war might be targetted by extremists in opposition to the war as legitimate targets to hamper the invasion, would you still be arguing that we should stay involved ?

It'd be sad if this were the only argument to sway you, consider that it implies that we'd only stand up for other people's rights when we ourselves had something to lose, but at least it might have the required end result.

SeanW

Liam Byrne wrote:

I agree completely, but don't use the word "unfortunate" when referring to Iraq - something that's "unfortunate" is an accident, or a side-effect, not a deliberate antagonistic act.

Fair enough.

"justification" for Shannon Airport ? Please explain, otherwise that comes across as condescendingly patronising - I almost didn't read the rest of your "point" as a result.

...

Bull****. If that were indeed the case, there would be no need for Dublin to be looking for a second terminal, since the country would use Shannon and Cork. The provision of flights, and the cost, are the key, and RyanAir has started new routes from Shannon to attempt to counteract the delays and costs with Dublin Airport, if you're looking for "professional whingers", find a mirror!

Ouch. It seems you aren't well up on just how much protectionism has been applied to Shannon Airport in the past and how much whining local vested interests do over it. For your enlightenment:
Wikipedia page on Shannon Airport

The first Air Services Agreement with the US in 1945 only permitted flights to Shannon and only permitted Irish airlines to serve Boston, Chicago and New York Idlewild (now JFK). At the end of 1971 the US Civil Aeronautics Board announced that unless US planes were allowed operate into Dublin Airport they proposed to ban Aer Lingus from landing in New York. This provoked an instant reaction from the Shannon staff.

The Shannon lobby were outraged at the loss of the Stopover Status, however, in reality little has changed.

Cork Airport has also been marginalised before the altar of the Shannon whingers.

This would also mean that transatlantic routes could develop between the US and Cork International Airport, which is unable to develop scheduled flights due to the current Stopover Status at Shannon. Many in Shannon fear this would lead to the downfall of the airport as many passengers might choose to opt for Cork.

Ouch! Passengers actually having a choice of airports! That whole "free market" thing that Shannon's been immune to until now.

Christ, have you a chip on your shoulder or what ? I don't know any professional whingers, so I don't know what they'd be screaming if the U.S. were told to feck off

No, it's a simple fact, the squeakiest wheel gets the oil.

In addition:

Financial figures released in April 2005 show that the airport lost €2.5m, whilst the transport of US troops made an income of €18m for the airport.

In other words, the US military plugged a major hole in Shannon's finances.

In light of this, can you honestly guarantee that the loss of this business for Shannon would not result in some class of mutilation to the other two main Irish airports or to Irish aviation in general?

Since you obviously favour good relations with warmongers over ethics, let me put it this way; if the flights were going through your beloved Dublin Airport, and the suggestion from a few years ago that airports involved in the war might be targetted by extremists in opposition to the war as legitimate targets to hamper the invasion, would you still be arguing that we should stay involved?

I have news for you: Islamist terrorists don't give a f**k what constitutes a "legitimate target" since they mostly target civilians, both in the West and in Iraq etc. They will attack, kill, maim and terrorize anyone where they think they'll get a result. Were the defenceless, unarmed and nonagrressive civilians on the Spanish trains on March 11th a few years ago "legitimate targets?" By most reasonable definitions, no, because the only legitimate targets in warfare are those using force to immediately prevent you from achieving your objectives, but then again that event did change the course of the upcoming Spanish elections. How about the ordinary civilians in Baghdad markets and mosques? Were the thousands of innocent people slaughtered at these locations posing any kind of thread to their attackers? If not, how can any be descibed as "legitimate targets" in warfare?

It doesn't matter whether or not we let one side use Shannon - if terrorists attack Ireland it will be because they see an advantage in doing so, not because of Shannon or anything else, though it may appear in their propoganda.

Liam Byrne

Slightly selective quoting there, SeanW.....

Firstly, by its nature, Wikipedia is a far from authorative source, but since you're referencing it.....

Wikipedia wrote:

Shannon was voted Best Airport in Ireland for the past two years running by the ATUC (Airport Transport Users Council) and Best Airport in Europe in the 1-5 million passengers per annum range in 2006.

With that opinion by anyone who uses it, doesn't it seem strange that (according to the "professional whingers" in Dublin, more people want to use Dublin Airport than want to use Shannon....?) I know that if direct flights were available, Shannon is a much more attractive option for me, and if we had proper rail and road links from, say, the western half of the country, it would be a no-brainer for them either.....but we don't, because all major road (motorways) and ALL rail services in Ireland lead to Dublin. With that in mind, it is only fair that Shannon get some preferential treatment in an attempt to restore the balance.

Personal preference would be that no preferential treatment be required; if we can get the current BertieDub administration to stop looking after their own backyard and provide the necessary non-Dublin-focussed infrastructure for the rest of the country (and not just for Shannon), then there would be nothing to balance up, and Shannon could easily compete with anyone, without the need to build another terminal in Dublin, giving gains all around - improved infrastructure, less congestion in Dublin Airport, more convenient for the travelling public, etc.

By most reasonable definitions, no, because the only legitimate targets in warfare are those using force to immediately prevent you from achieving your objectives

So what you're saying is that Bush & Co might blow up Ireland if we "prevent them from achieving their objectives" ?

It doesn't matter whether or not we let one side use Shannon

Yes it does, if only on purely ethical matters. And the fact that we are supposed to be neutral. Following your argument, should we let the Iraqis use Dublin or Cork to fight back ?

And as for

can you honestly guarantee that the loss of this business for Shannon would not result in some class of mutilation to the other two main Irish airports or to Irish aviation in general

I. don't. care. We should not be involved in an illegal war. Period. Financial considerations do not come into the equation when you are looking at a supposedly passive "look-the-other-way" approach to an illegal war that is causing the deaths of thousands of people every day.

Bertie going on an international stage the other day and voicing his own opinion, rather than that of the general public, made us look bad, apparently implying that Ireland wants to maintain the current arrangement, rather than highlighting the fact that enough people disapprove that it is now an issue in the formation of his Government.

Yet more proof that Bertie is an out-of-touch plonker.

philologos

karen3212 wrote:

What airport would the US use, if they couldn't use Shannon?

They are also using Derry and Belfast Aldergrove so I don't think they would have much problems with losing Shannon. And Glasgow and others in the UK.

Liam Byrne

Jakkass wrote:

They are also using Derry and Belfast Aldergrove so I don't think they would have much problems with losing Shannon. And Glasgow and others in the UK.

Which makes perfect sense, considering the UK got into bed with them to start the invasion that led to the war.

But like I said earlier, who cares ? I mean, if your neighbour occasionally borrowed your car in order to commit crimes, and you said "Oi, that's not on", and told him that he couldn't use it any more, would you care what transport he used in order to commit the future crimes ?

Voipjunkie

Liam Byrne wrote:

Yet more proof that Bertie is an out-of-touch plonker.

Unfortunately we have just had an election and more people voted for bertie and his party than any other party by a long shot so whilst we may disagree with Bertie perhaps we are the out of touch plonkers because in reality a very large part of the Irish people do not seem to be that bothered about Shannon or the lack of inspections or extraordinary rendition (kidnapping)

K-9

Voipjunkie wrote:

Unfortunately we have just had an election and more people voted for bertie and his party than any other party by a long shot so whilst we may disagree with Bertie perhaps we are the out of touch plonkers because in reality a very large part of the Irish people do not seem to be that bothered about Shannon or the lack of inspections or extraordinary rendition (kidnapping)

Well rightly or wrongly, FF aren't against, it's up to the parties who where against it to follow that policy. Is this a case of Labour/Greens just filling out their manifestos knowing there really is politically no chance of it happening?

SeanW

Liam Byrne wrote:

Slightly selective quoting there, SeanW.....

But of course, you ignored it ALL ...

With that opinion by anyone who uses it, doesn't it seem strange that (according to the "professional whingers" in Dublin, more people want to use Dublin Airport than want to use Shannon....?)

When you're being funded out the Wazoozo by two governments to provide International services to a relatively small number passengers, it's not hard to get it right.

Meanwhile most people living in this country live and work closer to Dublin and Cork airports, but those airports have a ball and chain around their necks.

I know that if direct flights were available, Shannon is a much more attractive option for me

DUH! You live in Limerick!

ALL rail services in Ireland lead to Dublin.

Nope. There are passenger services from Limerick to Rosslare and Ballbybrophy. They're slow, infrequent and carry about 10 people a day. But seeing this shining success, the Western lobby wants to do it again, in the form of the Western Rail Corridor. Originally built as a light railway with steep gradients, sharp curves and a lot of level crossings, most of this "Corridor" could never provide a modern rail service even with a boatload of money thrown at it. But that hasn't stopped it from being placed ahead of critical projects to places that have no railway services at all, like Navan in Transport 21.

With that in mind, it is only fair that Shannon get some preferential treatment in an attempt to restore the balance

... BertieDub

... without the need to build another terminal in Dublin

Thank you for proving my point.

So what you're saying is that Bush & Co might blow up Ireland if we "prevent them from achieving their objectives" ?

If they declared war with that stated intention then yes. But of course any red blooded Irishman would fight back.

Yes it does

I was highlighting the fact that terrorists don't give a toss about "legitimacy" of targets because they're not fighting a war, they're fighting a campaign of terror against civilians primarily for the purposes of promoting Islamo-fascism.

And as for I. don't. care. We should not be involved in an illegal war. Period. Financial considerations do not come into the equation when you are looking at a supposedly passive "look-the-other-way" approach to an illegal war that is causing the deaths of thousands of people every day.

1: I believe there has been a UN resolution on the matter of post-war occupation. So it's no longer illegal AFAIK.
2: Remind me, becuase I seem to have forgotten, who's doing all the killing, like blowing up car bombs in the middle of crowded markets? And whos trying to stop it?
3: I'm just pointing out that if you want to be idealistic, in addition to being 4 years too late you also have to deal with practical realities, the key two of which are the cooling of diplomatic relations and the possibility that if a huge hole is opened in Shannon's business/finances, the powerful Western whinger lobby will be baying for Cork and Dublin's blood - at a key juncture in Dublin Airport's history. These practical realities alone are enough reason to put caution over idealism.