Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Indymedia Ireland is a volunteer-run non-commercial open publishing website for local and international news, opinion & analysis, press releases and events. Its main objective is to enable the public to participate in reporting and analysis of the news and other important events and aspects of our daily lives and thereby give a voice to people.
Julian Assange is finally free ! Tue Jun 25, 2024 21:11 | indy
Stand With Palestine: Workplace Day of Action on Naksa Day Thu May 30, 2024 21:55 | indy
It is Chemtrails Month and Time to Visit this Topic Thu May 30, 2024 00:01 | indy
Hamburg 14.05. "Rote" Flora Reoccupied By Internationalists Wed May 15, 2024 15:49 | Internationalist left
Eddie Hobbs Breaks the Silence Exposing the Hidden Agenda Behind the WHO Treaty Sat May 11, 2024 22:41 | indy Human Rights in Ireland >>
Is the Muslim Vote Abandoning Labour? Tue Jul 30, 2024 11:00 | Frank Haviland Is the 'Muslim vote' set to abandon Labour? With three quarters of British Muslims refusing to believe Hamas committed atrocities on October 7th, it's hard to see how Labour can retain them, says Frank Haviland.
The post Is the Muslim Vote Abandoning Labour? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Bridget Phillipson is Wrong About the Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act Tue Jul 30, 2024 09:00 | Dr Julius Grower Bridget Phillipson is wrong about the Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act she has just torpedoed, says Oxford law academic Dr Julius Grower. It won't increase legal action for universities but will ease it.
The post Bridget Phillipson is Wrong About the Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
No, Ed Miliband Does Not Have a ?Mandate? for His Net Zero Lunacy Tue Jul 30, 2024 07:00 | Ben Pile With swivel-eyed zeal, Ed Miliband has been telling broadcasters he has a "mandate" to deliver his unworkable and unaffordable Net Zero agenda. Not when just 20% of the public voted for you, says Ben Pile.
The post No, Ed Miliband Does Not Have a ?Mandate? for His Net Zero Lunacy appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
News Round-Up Tue Jul 30, 2024 00:49 | Richard Eldred A summary of the most interesting stories in the past 24 hours that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the ?climate emergency?, public health ?crises? and the supposed moral defects of Western civilisation.
The post News Round-Up appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Huw Edwards Charged With Making Indecent Images of Children Mon Jul 29, 2024 19:00 | Will Jones Huw Edwards, one of the BBC's highest-paid stars who left the corporation last year, has been charged with three counts of making indecent images of children, the Metropolitan Police has said.
The post Huw Edwards Charged With Making Indecent Images of Children appeared first on The Daily Sceptic. Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
Netanyahu soon to appear before the US Congress? It will be decisive for the suc... Thu Jul 04, 2024 04:44 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N°93 Fri Jun 28, 2024 14:49 | en
Will Israel succeed in attacking Lebanon and pushing the United States to nuke I... Fri Jun 28, 2024 14:40 | en
Will Netanyahu launch tactical nuclear bombs (sic) against Hezbollah, with US su... Thu Jun 27, 2024 12:09 | en
Will Israel provoke a cataclysm?, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Jun 25, 2024 06:59 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
Our constitution does contain a neutrality principle.
national |
crime and justice |
opinion/analysis
Tuesday October 11, 2005 04:26 by Seán Ryan
![Report this post to the editors Report this post to the editors](../graphics/report.gif)
Our Constitution is mocked by our Government's use of their vile and ultimately ficticious "Neutrality Policy." I believe I have found a part of our constitution that forbids our Government from forming such a policy. I'd like to hear your comments and any advice or ideas would be welcome. Year after year, we watch our government redefine the idea of Neutrality with their very flexible "Neutrality Policy." The only part of this elusive entity that I have ever come into contact with, is the idea that this policy defines neutrality as meaning that we can do anything in favour of either warring side just so long as we don't commit troops to a field of contention in favour of either side. (At this point I wonder about Irish troops on Irish soil, pointing guns at Irish citizens in favour of the American War machine's right to cripple and plunder other sovereign nations. I'm talking about Shannon Airport here.) Anyway, to describe this "Neutrality Policy" as anything other than a total load of shite is to be very generous.
Why is it a load of shite you ask?
I'll answer this question for the "generous" people before I start quoting the constitution.
The term "neutral" has a pretty straightforward meaning. I'm not even going to turn to a dictionary to explain it. I'm sure someone will correct me anyway. Basically "neutral" means non-involvement. We therefore cannot have a "neutrality policy" simply because we support and abet the American war machine.
Do you see?
In other words, the contents of this policy belies what it calls itself. ie. it's called a "neutrality" policy but the policy itself is not neutral. Its simple isn't it?
Methinks Bertie ought to rectify this problem. Allow me to offer a few suggestions for name changes that might more truthfully describe this "policy."
How about naming it our, "Nearly neutral but not quite policy."
Or, our, "we'll do what suits us best irregardless as to consequences so shut the fuck up policy."
Ok let's move on a bit and look at the paradox this "neutrality policy" currently finds itself floundering aimlessly in.
Before the outbreak of WW2, Eamonn DeValera demanded and secured the return of the treaty ports,which were military bases still held by Britain. This was done so that our "neutrality policy" could be implemented. In other words we could not implement any "neutrality policy" whilst we facilitated a warring foreign army.
There's the paradox. The "neutrality policy" cannot be implemented whilst we facilitate a warring army that we are not in command of, yet, it can function whilst we facilitate a warring army that we do not control.
Now for the bit most of you have been waiting for. My constitutional reference. For the experts out there I'd like to know about the actual legal ramifications of what I'm about to say in as far as disagreeing with what I have to say is concerned. I'd also like to know does my argument have any legal merit.
Here's the reference, it is the preamble to our Constitution and it is the only part endorsed by "We the people."
PREAMBLE
In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Ireland, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation, And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations, Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.
The way I see it.....The Government derives its power from the Constitution. The Constitution derives its power and purpose from us. We are represented in our constitution by the preamble, which describes us and the aims of our Constitution. The preamble to the Constitution is its Spirit.
Our "neutrality policy" is obviously repugnant to the Spirit of our constitution. Simply because we support a nation who sees no problem with bombing being used as a pacific method in the settlement of disputes.
Our government often spouts this "Pacific settlement of disputes" shite and yet they support America who sees bombing people as a method of negotiation.
See where it says "concord established with other nations," near the end of the Preamble.
Concord in simple terms means peace and agreement. "Other nations," because it doesn't single any particular nation out, means, "all nations." To be anything other than Neutral violates this principle.
For example, if we fuel up and help transport the American war machine towards its target, then we can be described as, "helping the yanks again." However, when we do this we are not establishing "Concord" with other sovereign nations like Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact we could be seen to be sanctioning both illegal wars and subsequent atrocities visited on these innocent peoples, this seems to me to be an act that is fully in opposition to the idea of "Concord" being established.
That's about it really. I'd like to know whether the preamble has any legal merit or is it just a bout of wishful thinking, signed by we the fools, that's open to contradiction at every given oppertunity.
In my opinion, if the preamble has no legal merit the Constitution itself has no legal merit. Either way our government acts repugnantly.
Anyways, fair play to the folks in Denmark for suing their Prime Minister for violating their constitution. Let's hope it starts a trend.
American war machine out, Neutrality and Sovereignty in.
Thanks for listening.
Seán Ryan
|
View Full Comment Text
save preference
Comments (36 of 36)