worldrepublic wrote: » Do people think it is right that Ireland fails to play a role in the fight against terror?
djpbarry wrote: » What about the ‘Yes’ votes in Spain and Luxembourg? What do they indicate?
P. Breathnach wrote: » What articles refer to the War on Terror? What articles mention Al Qaida or any Islamic faction?
marco_polo wrote: » It is up to us to respect our own neutrality. We already have the right to inspect Military Flights that pass through Shannon and the Government has never choosen to excercise that right. This is a seperate issue from the EU and Lisbon entirely. That the US may be engaging in the illegal transportation of prisoners through our airports has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU 'respecting' our neutrality.
bayviewclose wrote: » We were put in a very difficult position with renditioning. Everyone knows that the American multi nationals provides countless jobs here. So as such we had to play along here. Yes we inspected flights but does that mean there were no prisoners on them. Unlikely. What were american soldiers passing through Shannon for . Buying guinness t shirts? And there are incidents of suspects being lifted off other European cities as well. So it does affect the EU.
The European parliament today urged member states to investigate so-called rendition flights by the CIA, and condemned the UK for failing to cooperate properly with its inquiry into the matter.The final report by a European parliament committee said more than 1,200 CIA-operated flights had used European airspace between 2001 and 2005.It accused some European countries of "turning a blind eye" to the flights, a number of which were allegedly used to transport terrorism suspects illegally. The US intelligence agency may also have operated secret jails for terrorism suspects at US military bases around Europe, according to the report, which MEPs are due to vote on next month. However, the committee members said it was now not possible to say conclusively whether a secret detention centre was located in Poland. An earlier draft of the report, in November, said such a facility was thought to have operated at Stare Kiejkuty in the country. The European parliament's committee on CIA activities in Europe, led by the Italian MEP Claudio Fava, with the British Liberal Democrat MEP Sarah Ludford as vice-president, condemned a "lack of co-operation of many member states". The committee specifically criticised Britain, Austria, Italy, Poland and Portugal for what it said was their obstructive attitude. The committee concluded that "the serious lack of concrete answers to the questions raised by victims, NGOs, media and parliamentarians has only strengthened the validity of already well documented allegations". Claims that the CIA was holding terrorism suspects in eastern Europe, Thailand and Afghanistan first emerged in the Washington Post in November last year. According to the US newspaper, the so-called black sites were established after the September 11 attacks, and held around 30 suspects. It is claimed that rendition flights allowed suspects to be questioned in countries where they had no rights under US law. Amnesty International and other human rights groups have heavily criticised the US over the allegations. Washington has refused to say whether secret CIA jails exist, but says all its anti-terrorism operations fall within international law. It has also rejected claims by some detainees that they were tortured in captivity. Human rights groups have called on Britain and other EU nations to explain what they know about the flights. It is alleged that Prestwick airport in Scotland was used for CIA flights.The committee called the renditions "an illegal instrument used by the USA in the fight against terrorism", and condemned some European states for their "acceptance and concealing" of the process. The report concluded by recommending that national governments and parliaments launch their own independent investigations into what happened. It also urged states to have specific laws to "regulate and monitor the activities of third countries' secret services on their national territories".
FutureTaoiseach wrote: » djpbarry wrote: » What about the ‘Yes’ votes in Spain and Luxembourg? What do they indicate? Consent for the EU Constitution. But it's like this. I believe in the principle of self-determination, whereby only individual nations can determine whether to transfer sovereignty to supranational institutions.
worldrepublic wrote: » as it rightly should -the terrorists are everywhere now. And you are talking about years ago, the War on Terror is much bigger now. This is an all-pervasive dilemma. Vote yes for positive change and hope.
djpbarry wrote: » So you’re just going to keep posting this nonsense without actually addressing anyone’s points?
bayviewclose wrote: » a high profile judge said recently we should vote no because it leaves our borders vulnerable.
djpbarry wrote: » Ah, but you were generalising about “the peoples of Europe” a few posts back. Four nations voted on the constitution by way of popular (or “consultative”) referendum; two were ‘for’, two ‘against’. If the tallies from the four nations are combined, then we have 54% ‘for’ and 46% ‘against’. I don’t know how you can thus conclude that “European integration is reaching the limits of what the peoples of Europe are prepared to accept.”
ei.sdraob wrote: » source?
The Corkman wrote: JUDGE Michael Pattwell has spoken out against the Lisbon Treaty, saying he believed its implementation would further undermine Ireland's ability to control its own borders. The judge made his comments during the trial of an unemployed 23-year-old Polish national at Fermoy District Court last Friday on five separate counts of theft. Thomas Chlebda, 3 Ballydaheen West, Mallow, was already serving a threemonth jail term for theft imposed on him at a special sitting of the court on the previous Monday. Chlebda was convicted on each of the five new theft charges, and sentenced to an additional five months in prison, one month for each charge. Speaking in court Judge Pattwell said the case clearly showed that "something needs to be done" to prevent foreign criminals from entering the state. "I will tell you why I would vote against the Lisbon Treaty and indeed the EU generally, in spite of the advantages it has brought to us. My problem is that we have already lost control of our borders," said the judge. "We should have the power to say no to thieves, drug dealers and troublemakers who want to enter the country," he added..
"I will tell you why I would vote [conditional future] against the Lisbon Treaty and indeed the EU generally, in spite of the advantages it has brought to us. My problem is that we have already lost [past] control of our borders," said the judge.
Martin 2 wrote: » Yes, the treaty gives me no reason to vote no.Yes because its acceptance is best for the economy in the long run.Yes, at heart I’m pro European.Yes, because a No would leave Ireland isolated in Europe.
fligedlyflick wrote: » LOL isolated in europe, i love this scaremongering
Martin 2 wrote: » You quote a post from page 1, 65 pages and over 1 month ago. This topic has been discussed numerous times since in this very thread. Learn some net etiquette please
FutureTaoiseach wrote: » You also have to factor in the inevitable no vote were/if this was put to the British electorate and most likely the Scandinavian countries too.
djpbarry wrote: » No I don’t. You said that the rejection of the EU Constitution in referenda in France and The Netherlands demonstrates that “European integration is reaching the limits of what the peoples of Europe are prepared to accept”. But you’re taking the ‘No’ vote in those two countries in isolation, which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in the context of ‘Europe’. That’s before we even begin to get into the reasons for the ‘No’ vote, which has already been discussed on numerous occasions on this forum. In short, treating the outcome of these two referenda as some sort of watershed is just a touch ridiculous.
FutureTaoiseach wrote: » In any case, I don't believe any nation has the right to force others to relinquish sovereignty - even if the country supporting integration wants to relinquish its own.
FutureTaoiseach wrote: » It's true that I am hypothesising. But so is interpreting the 2 yes votes as some sign that a majority of Europeans want Lisbon. Solution: let's have referenda in all member states.
FutureTaoiseach wrote: » It's true that I am hypothesising. But so is interpreting the 2 yes votes as some sign that a majority of Europeans want Lisbon.
bayviewclose wrote: » http://www.corkman.ie/news/pattwell-weve-lost-control-of-our-borders-1846262.html was also picked up elsewhere. Not high profile judge but Judge nonetheless.
djpbarry wrote: » It would appear from the article that Judge Pattwell is against the EU’s provision for the free movement of people rather than any particular aspect of the Lisbon Treaty.
worldrepublic wrote: » Irish people want free movement and a more diverse culture anyway. Same goes for other peoples. Kind of like a student-exchange program, but on a somewhat bigger scale.
Putnam's recent study on diversity involved nearly 30,000 people in 41 communities. He found that the more diverse neighborhoods are the less social capital they create. People in diverse communities volunteer less, give to charity less, vote less and work on less community projects. The simple fact is that people do not trust people they share little in common with. As President Clinton's Secretary of Labor Robert Reich pointed out, the rich do not want pay taxes to help the poor when they do not see any commonality with them.
djpbarry wrote: It would appear from the article that Judge Pattwell is against the EU’s provision for the free movement of people rather than any particular aspect of the Lisbon Treaty.
FutureTaoiseach wrote: » But couldn't it also said that perhaps he came to this view from experience, rather than having opposed it originally? Was there not a major difference in demographic trends arising from the 2004 Enlargement relative to past Enlargements e.g. Spain/Portugal with respect to the impact on Ireland? Speaking personally, I am not sure I would have voted for Nice had I known the scale of the influx that would come after Enlargement. It's not that I am against immigration - I am not. But I believe there are only so many people this island can support.
worldrepublic wrote: » Ireland has a small population -we could accelerate it to c. 20 million.
worldrepublic wrote: » Four or five articles mention terrorism and various way to combat it. I have posted the text of one, and another poster provided the others. You will need to check back through the threads, if you are interested in learning more. I did not say that the articles specifically mention Al qaeda. Thank you for raising the point though as it simply means the Treaty recognises that terrorism is a global problem and goes way beyond any single group. As evidenced by the recent incursions in Pakistan, terrorism is not abbating and the Treaty will enable everyone to play their part in bringing democracy to all peoples of the world, especially those we need to trade with (Europe needs increasingly high amounts of oil and gas). Voting yes will bring stability and social cohesion to Europe.
ei.sdraob wrote: » http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055645157 some already are breeding away
