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



It’s anti-semitic bullshit. Surely you can see that?


Don’t call me Shirley…:getmecoat: (bad joke)

If it is ‘anti-semitic bullshit’, let us address these claims and explain why first.

  1. Anti-Semitic -> How so & what has this got to do with ‘international banking’?
  2. Bullshit -> Where is the lie?



On burning bondholders, Mr Cardiff said the Government was blocked in 2010 by the ECB and US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and others from burning senior bondholders.

IMO, if there is a conspiracy involving international bankers, it has nothing to do with anybody’s religion. It’s about power & control. The battle ground is the duty and responsibilities between creditor and borrower.


NM Rothschild among others directed the department of Finance during the banking crisis and set up of the NAMA vehicle.

Given the materiality of the decisions taken then, that impact now and across our lifetimes, it would be remiss for a new opposition party not to raise and discuss these matters.

Rothschild replaces Merrill as State’s adviser on sector crisis

Joe Brennan

August 29 2009 12:00 AM

Blue-blooded investment bank NM Rothschild has replaced Merrill Lynch in the lucrative gig of advising the Government on its attempts to sort out the banking sector.

Rothschild will also play a key role in shaping the landscape of the sector as the Department of Finance prioritises consolidation among second-tier lenders once the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) is up and running.


Vincent in fine form here

Who are the Anglo Irish Bank Bondholders Vincent?


Ok, I’m not going to pursue this any further. But that was emphatically not your statement. In response to my claim of an anti-Semitic slur, your exact statement was: “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”. Now either your statement was completely irrelevant and apropos of nothing (in which case why bring it up?) or you were claiming that the speaker was, in fact, factually discussing their specific influence. He clearly wasn’t. He made an unsubstantiated remark about an international battle against a “cabal” (itself carrying strong Jewish connotations) of international bankers, and specifically identifies only Rothschilds. You’re either being devious or naive. At best he is concocting a rabble-rousing story about a secret conspiracy of bankers, or – much more likely, indeed almost certainly – a secret conspiracy of specifically Jewish bankers. You musn’t get out much on the interwebs if you can’t spot that all-to-common trope.

But I will leave it there.

And I make the counterclaim that the speech was much more about what was not said. The actual content was a bunch of disconnected, incoherent drivel. But since he was clearly preaching to the converted (judging by the sporadic applause and appreciative cries) you can bet that he pressed all the right buttons and left his audience to draw the right conclusions (i.e. the ones that you say we’re not allowed to draw).

You could be right. He may be only looking out for the little volk. I’d bet my bottom dollar against it. And there I will leave it.



Ok, I’m not going to pursue this any further.

But I will leave it there.

And there I will leave it.

Fair enough. I hope you’ve successfully proved your conjecture to yourself.


A lot of NBA basketballers are African American.

Apparently highlighting the fact that NBA basketballers are paid obscene amounts of cash is code for racism against African Americans.

We’ve had the Russians, the Retards and now the Joos on this thread to date.

It seems that, in much the same way that the establishment media despise the manner in which new/alt-media have moved the goalposts in terms of controlling the media narrative, the same applies to anyone who would seek to move the political goalposts away from the two-sided status quo that has worked oh so well for us all over the past twenty odd years.


Snowing much near you?


Two week forecast here

Weather aside, lets be clear about what has been posited during the course of this thread.

Firstly, you cant be critical of Irelands current relationship with the EU unless you’re a ‘retard’.

Secondly, anyone who engages in such activity, beyond being ‘retarded’, is most likely in the pay of the Russian state.

Thirdly, criticism of the extent of the influence exerted by the international banking industry, to include the imposition of onerous terms on supposedly independent state entities such as Ireland and Greece in the recent past, is engaging in anti-semitism.

Change my mind.


Watched a few of the video’s on the Irexit channel. I thought the quality of the debates was quite poor, and it seems to me that a lot of the grievances expressed had nothing to do with the EU. I think it’s important that we don’t allow immigration or the bank bailout become the straw man for us leaving the EU. This is what has happened in the UK, and it’s just become a complete mess there.

The big problem I see with the Irexit point of view is that we are now so integrated with the EU, that leaving would be orders of magnitude harsher than what the UK faces. Firstly, as an open services economy that generates exports of a magnitude of order greater than that of the UK on a per capita basis, we are far more integrated into the European and global economy than the UK. Secondly, as has already been pointed out here many times before, the UK accounts for a shrinking share of the overall economic pie, so to cut ties with our largest trading partner would be extremely damaging for us. Thirdly, as a fly speck on the overall world economy, we would have no leverage whatsoever in cutting trade deals with other economies. Indeed, I think our small size would make it likely that any deals that we do agree, would be to our detriment. In global trade, the larger party always gets the more favourable deals. Finally, we have the not insignificant problem of our membership of the Euro. To disentangle ourselves from the EU is one thing, to leave the Euro is another.

If you look at what has happened with the UK, they haven’t even left the EU, yet their economy is measurably smaller than it should be since they voted to leave a year and a half ago. As a smaller, more open, more integrated economy; the damage to Ireland leaving the EU would be greater than what the UK face. The only way that I could see Ireland mitigating the damage somehow, would be to align ourselves with the UK, but surely that would defeat the purpose of us leaving the UK and the EU in the first place?

The EU is not perfect, and it does need reform. But leaving now would be cutting our nose off to spite our face.



Change my mind.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.

We’re fully integrated now for our life support, like Darth Vader within the empire. :new_moon:

Star Wars analogies aside, what you say is true, atm. But what about 2-3 years from now? There are in my view financial and structural problems within the EU that will eventually come to the fore.

With Brexit, we’ve been getting hit non-stop with the “silly Brits” narrative. I’m not sure if I believe that one.


What exactly are they? If you’ve gone into this elsewhere can you link to it please?

From what I can see most things are a reasonable compromise that suit Ireland better than anything else that can be put in place.


Italy has the potential to cause a contagion problem.


How exactly does this fall into a ‘structural problem within the EU’? Italy’s financial problems are Italy’s problems no one else’s.


Calling all people who are Irexit supporters, or anti-EU people, for want of a better description.

I’ve been in most countries in the EU. I’ve also traveled quite a bit outside of the EU for work and fun. While I work in Dublin, most of my day to day work is focused outside the EU. I have to say I much prefer life in the EU than what I see outside the EU.

I can’t think of a single thing that the EU has done which has been anything more than a minor annoyance at worst to me personally. I can think of many many things which the EU has done which has made my life better on a daily basis and continues to do so.

If I look at larger EU policy and the legal infrastructure that is the EU, I can’t see anything that I fundamentally disagree with. There are some directives here and there that if it were up to me I’d do differently, but I can’t think of any that are fundamentally wrong. The general treaties look to be a reasonable compromise.

The EU for me is just something that sits in the background and helps modern life run more smoothly.

What is it that people feel so strongly about? Honestly, I don’t understand. Can someone give some specifics that affect them personally and equally important, what can be changed for the better?

What am I missing ?




Interesting. So I assume by this that there is nothing specific that has affected you personally?


If that is the level of debate, maybe you should go elsewhere. If you have some constructive argument lets hear it


I don’t support Irexit nor am I anti-EU. But it is possible to be critical of the EU and the direction it has/is taking.

I see it moving in the direction of a Superstate- some politicians on the Continent IMO want a ‘state’ that can match Russia, China and USA on the world stage. They cannot do that individually.

I don’t agree with the never ending attempts at expansion. We were getting close to Turkey joining there a few years ago. And overtures to Ukraine has caused no end of trouble there. The big bang in 2004 saw a huge number of people move to Ireland, for which we were not prepared or ever discussed. That helped to make the crash here even worse than it would have been if the growth level hadn’t received that adrenaline shot.

I didn’t agree with the ECB forcing us to not burn any bondholders.

I don’t agree with the attempts at moving towards an EU army. Or tax harmonisation. Or a common foreign policy.

I could go on :hugs: