Irexit / Eirexit, call it want you want. They want out!



Going from a King Gammon comment to Animal Farm analogy, is IMHO a stretch or I think you have it totally backwards in the context of Brexit within an EU structure.

Though as you have noted Animal Farm is incredibly fractal in its applicability to providing a useful narrative to understand brutality of institutional/organisational menace that places itself as ultimately the highest power under penalty of death.

So it can apply to each Russian Doll as such.

George however, he seem more cast now as four legs as the two legs have left him for dead.


Limerick Today- Should Ireland follow Britain’s lead and leave the European Union?

Gillian talks to Fine Gael Senator Maria Byrne and Dolores Cahill who is the Chairperson of the Irish Freedom Party about the idea of Irexit and whether Ireland should follow Britain’s lead and leave the European Union.

It was a rabble rousing speech. What else would one expect…(a 5 year plan with projections, charts & graphs perhaps?)
If we are to give this speech fair criticism, we have to criticize it based on what was actually said. I heard “Corrupt International Bankers”.
He did mention politically correct cowardice.


The problem with Ireland is lack of self confidence he says. Look at Iceland, look how good they are doing separate from the EU he says…

Ummmm, isn’t Iceland in the EEA, Schengen and a bunch of other things that makes it an EU member in all but name ?
Yes, I know. Technically they are not part of the EU customs union and have an exemption on fishing etc.



If you thought the bank bailout was bad, wait until the mortgage defaults hit home -> Nov 2010

As ordinary people start to realise that this thing is not only happening, it is happening to them, we can see anxiety giving way to the first upwellings of an inchoate rage and despair that will transform Irish politics along the lines of the Tea Party in America. Within five years, both Civil War parties are likely to have been brushed aside by a hard right, anti-Europe, anti-Traveller party that, inconceivable as it now seems, will leave us nostalgic for the, usually, harmless buffoonery of Biffo, Inda, and their chums.

I remember reading that at the time and thought it sounded absurd. I wrongly assumed professor Kelly had a tin ear for politics. Now it doesn’t seem like such a strange idea; given what we are seeing in some of the other EU countries. (It’s still a bit out there in terms of the degree of the prediction, but not an impossibility.)


Listen again – he doesn’t just mention bankers but singles out Rothschilds, and “international globalists such as George Soros”. This is thinly-veiled language for a supposed international Zionist conspiracy, well rehearsed by anti-Semites and Jew baiters of the modern extreme right. These bastards need calling out for what they are.


Yep it’s the typical race-bait, anti-semitic, anti-bankers (but in the pocket of the rich) that has served the kippers well. As you say, it offers nothing positive; hate of this, anti that.


But Soros is not Jewish as he is an atheist, by his own admission. You could say he is semitic, but big deal man, so are 500 million other people across North Africa, Europe and the middle east.

Soros is also anti Zionist:

In reality Soros, with his progressive, anti-Zionist agenda, is actually one of them. He is as much a practicing Jew as the Iranian ayatollahs; and when it comes to foreign policy, finding daylight between him and them would require a microscope.

JAFFA, Israel — As a Holocaust survivor, a successful financier who embraces free market capitalism and a philanthropist who champions liberal democracy, George Soros should be a darling of the Israeli establishment. But Mr. Soros has failed the only litmus test that seems to count for Israel’s current leadership: unconditional support for the government, despite its policies of occupation, discrimination and disregard for civil and human rights.


IMHO, the House of Rothschild are a historically significant dynasty and factually discussing their specific influence is not, nor should it ever be considers as an sleight against people of Semitic origin (of which there are very many groups) or those who practice Judaism.

The issues for discussion are not Zionism/Semitism/Judaism…those issues are deployed as chaff/red herrings to distract from real and pertinent targets of discussion; The global banking/finance/information/political/economic systems…and their effects on individuals, families, societies, nations and the environment.



The specific quote is: “Ireland is merely the western front in a worldwide battle against the cabal of international bankers such as the Rothschilds”. That’s a throwaway slur, not a factual discussion of specific influences.

I found little in the way of evidence in his diatribe, and lots in the mode of “der turk ur jerbs”.


“That’s a throwaway slur” - How, in your opinion is that intended as a “slur” or an insult; explain?

“der turk ur jerbs” - (Bit of a hackneyed meme imho, ho-hum :icon_rolleyes:) I don’t recall anything about jobs being mentioned. Link?


These backers of Brexit are the likely backers of Irexit. Imperialists, currency speculators and tax dodgers.


What’s your reasoning?
If the Irexit Freedom Party have big money/state backers, why does their official YouTube channel only have 2.2k subscribers?
IMHO, if they were getting big money/state backers they’d have arranged click-farms to bump their subscriber numbers. 2.2k is a very small number of subscribers.


He drops the name Rothschild out of the blue and totally without context, and you defend it as “factually discussing the specific influence of a historically significant dynasty”. C’mon, pull the other one. We all know what he’s getting at.

I didn’t mean to imply that it was about jobs. I meant to imply that it was a rabble-rousing polemic, devoid of fact or evidence.


The following quote and article are relevant to the suggestion that only retards or Russian agents working on behalf of Vladimir Putin could be interested in discussing the nature of Irelands relationship with the European Union. At this stage it’s probable that even Russian speaking retards themselves could probably grasp that much

Any narrative of which the Establishment does not approve is decried as conspiracy theory. Yet the “Russiagate” conspiracy theory – which truly is Fake News – has been promoted massively by the entire weight of western corporate and state media. “Russiagate”, a breathtaking plot in which Russia and a high profile US TV personality collude together to take control of the most militarily powerful country in the world, knocks “The Manchurian Candidate” into a cocked hat. A Google “news search” restricts results to mainstream media outlets. Such a search for the term “Russiagate” brings 230,000 results. That is almost a quarter of a million incidents of the mainstream media not only reporting the fake “Russiagate” story, but specifically using that term to describe it.

Compare that with a story which is not an outlandish fake conspiracy theory, but a very real conspiracy.

If, by contrast, you do a Google “news search” for the term “Integrity Initiative”, the UK government’s covert multi million pound programme to pay senior mainstream media journalists to pump out anti-Russian propaganda worldwide, you only get one eighth of the results you get for “Russiagate”. Because the mainstream media have been enthusiastically promoting the fake conspiracy story, and deliberately suppressing the very real conspiracy in which many of their own luminaries are personally implicated


Presumably there exists some non-Russian speaking members of the general population who are not necessarily over the moon about the direction in which this is headed…


Indeed, 2.2k is a very small number of subscribers to be funding an organisation by public donation. That can only mean large secretive (since they are not announced) backers.
As to how you run your popularity business, I leave that to you.


I already alluded to the fact that with was a rabble rousing speech.
You said without context…
The context was; from your quote. “cabel of international bankers”.
An instance of internal bankers is “Rothschilds”.
By your “logic” then nobody can mention the name “Rothschild”. Even thought they though they are one, and perhaps the most historically significant international banking houses in history.
We all know what he’s getting at.” Explain. I don’t like this air of suspicion and mystery you are attempting to conjure up. IMO, this is part of the problem. I think we should talk about all these things, this is what I was refer to by factually discussing.


No, you implied that the speaker in the video was factually discussing the Rothschilds. I gave you his entire quote. Here it is again: “Ireland is merely the western front in a worldwide battle against the cabal of international bankers such as the Rothschilds”. That’s it in its entirety. Where are the facts? Where’s the discussion? Why the Rothschilds? Why not HSBC or Barclays or Deutschebank? Why not somebody connected to Ireland’s financial crisis which he mentions later?

Either you’re being taken for a fool or you’re trying to take me for one. The Rothschild name is dropped in connection with international conspiracies – particularly Jewish ones – all the time. You’re trying to tell me that this particular speaker just chose them as an example of an international banker. Nothing to do with any conspiratorial thinking, in spite of him taking precisely zero time to further develop this hypothesis of a worldwide battle in which Ireland is supposedly the western front? The guy has got self-important wacky conspiracy theorist written all over him.


No, no again I think you mis-represent my position.

  1. I said the speech was a rabble rousing speech. (By definition, focused more on emotion than hard facts, the purpose is to rouse).
  2. My statement was that we should factually discuss the claims made in the speech. (Not that the speech was factual.)
  3. Generally, to mention or discuss the Rothschild banking dynasty in a factual basis should not be a taboo topic. IMO factually discussing their relevance and history would dispel much of the more wacky theories.
  4. I claim we can only factually discuss this speech on the basis of what was said, rather than on what we imagine was implied…that would be in the area of opinion/conjecture. If we want to discuss it terms of opinions we can do that too, but lets not confuse the two.

The claims are:

  1. There is a cabal of international bankers. T/F?
  2. There is a a battle against these international bankers. T/F?
  3. Ireland is the western front in this battle. T/F?
  4. The Rothschild bank are an example of of these international bankers. T/F?