Irish Neutrality - A Joke? (EU Treaty)

ninty9er

nhughes100 wrote: »

And another thing, consider this possible scenario and tell me Nuetrality isn't a joke.

Turkey(a non EU country and long may it last) attacks Greece(an EU member state) over Cyprus. Things get out of hand fast and it's just happens that the Battlegroup on call has Irish troops in it. The battlegroup goes in to calm things down but the Turks have other ideas and open fire killing one or more Irish soldiers.

Now are you telling me that Ireland will remain nuetral in such an event?????

I didn't think so.

Battlegroups are so called because it's the European term for Batallion or whatever....we have a number of them already.

Ireland will not be engaging in any frontline battle under any circumstances and our role as has always been, will be in peacekeeping.

Like I previously mentioned about the Swiss and the Swedes...producing fighter jets and having the largest per capita airforce aren't exactly hallmarks of military neutrality.

I agree on the Air Corps and Navy patrolling capabilities, but the Spanish fishermen would be of secondary concern to me behind the drug cargo. I actually have aproposal on the Navy.

SeanW

ninty9er wrote: »

Like I previously mentioned about the Swiss and the Swedes...producing fighter jets and having the largest per capita airforce aren't exactly hallmarks of military neutrality.

Actually, a well funded Air Force and massive standing army are central planks of any serious claim to military neutrality.

Because if a Neutral county is invaded or attacked, it can respond to that invasion or aggression without any need to call on allies or rely on any defense agreements.

I believe Belgium and Holland were "neutral" in World War II, but in reality they were just a light lunch for the Third Reich. Unlike Switzerland.

We on the other hand, know that if we ever get into trouble, the US military and the RAF will be over here in heartbeat. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Irish Air Force called in the RAF to help patrol our skies ...

Ireland is "neutral" alright tell me another one

ninty9er

SeanW wrote: »

Actually, a well funded Air Force and massive standing army are central planks of any serious claim to military neutrality.

Because if a Neutral county is invaded or attacked, it can respond to that invasion or aggression without any need to call on allies or rely on any defence agreements.

No arguments there.

SeanW wrote: »

We on the other hand, know that if we ever get into trouble, the US military and the RAF will be over here in heartbeat. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Irish Air Force called in the RAF to help patrol our skies ...

This is true, but I imagine we'd have the Luftwaffe and ALA deployed within minutes if we were subject to hostility from the UK. I like the idea of a Swedish type army, but the Irish people aren't great ones for paying to get what they want.

Galliard

ninty9er wrote: »

Battlegroups are so called because it's the European term for Batallion or whatever....we have a number of them already.

Ireland will not be engaging in any frontline battle under any circumstances and our role as has always been, will be in peacekeeping.

Like I previously mentioned about the Swiss and the Swedes...producing fighter jets and having the largest per capita airforce aren't exactly hallmarks of military neutrality.

I agree on the Air Corps and Navy patrolling capabilities, but the Spanish fishermen would be of secondary concern to me behind the drug cargo. I actually have aproposal on the Navy.

So producing fighter jets etc is not a hallmark of military neutrality?

But someone else says that we cannot be neutral unless we have the hardware needed to fight off an aggressor.

Which is it?

Scofflaw

Galliard wrote: »

So producing fighter jets etc is not a hallmark of military neutrality?

But someone else says that we cannot be neutral unless we have the hardware needed to fight off an aggressor.

Which is it?

Have a look at the post immediately above yours.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

Just on what OscarBravo said, Yes Irish soldiers have been killed but by terrorist organisations, my point was that if another country was directly responsible how could we remain nuetral.

Also Ireland's role in Somalia was peace enforcement not peace keeping. Sorry I don't believe that Irish troops won't be deployed to a frontline situation and why shouldn't they be deployed? They're well equipped and trained and thats what one of the main reasons for joining an army.

The question still remains is nuetrality a joke? Regardless of the upcoming referendum I still believe it to be so.

bonkey

nhughes100 wrote: »

Just on what OscarBravo said, Yes Irish soldiers have been killed but by terrorist organisations, my point was that if another country was directly responsible how could we remain nuetral.

At a guess, by not declaring war on them.

Neutrality, however, does not mean "a refusal to defend oneself".

Sorry I don't believe that Irish troops won't be deployed to a frontline situation

In order for teh Irish troops to be deployed, as has been established, the Irish government would have to vote in favour of same.
If they do so, then our (non-Constitutional) neutrality will be at an end...just as it would be if our government voted today
to send our troops onto some frontline.

The question still remains is nuetrality a joke?

Neutrality in general, or the Irish flavour of it?

Regardless of the upcoming referendum I still believe it to be so.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Personally, I think the world is a better place because - as a simple example - there is a nation who can act as an intermediary between Iran and the US, despite those nations having no official contact with each other.

That role is fulilled by Switzerland, and it is purely and solely because of the nature of Swiss neutrality that both sides are willing to trust it as an intermediary of good faith.

If Ireland's neutrality is a joke to you, then I would suggest that the problem is that Ireland is not neutral enough, not that it is too neutral.

purple'n'gold

In the grand scheme of things it makes no real difference to rest of the world whether we are “neutral” or not. As far as we in Ireland are concerned we are a pro western democracy, members of the EU and under the de facto protection of NATO. We have a small naval service which does a good job but could be better resourced because of the illegal importation of drugs. We do not have an air force, nor do we need one. If we are in need of the services of a jet fighter the RAF will be here in about 20 mins. Our army was set up to defend the state from dissidents from within, a job it has done professionally and faithfully since 1922. It was never intended to fight a war. It is simply not big enough or equipped for that. It is good that our troops are now going to get overseas experience as members of European battle groups and on EU missions. I have always detested this ridiculous triple lock nonsense where our government kow tows and genuflects to the UN. It’s absurd that a country like China, can decide whether we can deploy our troops or not.

nhughes100

I can just imagine the Turks/Iranians/whoever's troops waiting on the Irish government to be recalled from the Summer break so we can vote on whether our forces can fight them or not. Once they are deployed as part of a battle group they will be as fair game as any other combatent. What are they going to say - Don't shoot that lad with an Irish flag on his uniform, he's nuetral.

Ireland is not nuetral, that's why Irish nuetrality is a joke. To have a pre-determined position to any conflict is simply a joke. I personally think that nuetrality in general is a cop out.

As purple and gold correctly points out we are under effective Nato membership in all but name, we are a pro-western state and are members of the EU. All of this negates any claim to possibly being nuetral.

We are definitely not too nuetral. We are pro-West, pro-EU - not nuetral, mutually exclusive.

Bonkey makes the point that because we would not declare war on a country that has killed Irish troops we would still be nuetral? So we would have the same international standing with the agressor as with other member states in the battlegroup?That's why it's a joke, completely unrealistic and unworkable. An outdated idea that should be constitutionally superceded.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

Just on what OscarBravo said, Yes Irish soldiers have been killed but by terrorist organisations, my point was that if another country was directly responsible how could we remain nuetral.

At a guess, by not declaring war on them.

Neutrality, however, does not mean "a refusal to defend oneself".

Indeed, it doesn't even mean not attacking other countries. It means not being party to other people's conflicts.

Hence the rather invidious argument over the military implications of membership of the EU. If a fellow member of the EU were attacked, would we respond by declaring war on the aggressor?

The answer, I think, is no. I suspect that if the UN determined the attack/occupation as illegal, we might accept a non-frontline role for Irish troops along with other forces under UN control - but we would not actually declare war on the aggressor, or involve Irish troops in any assault on the aggressor's forces or territory, because that would make us party to the conflict. What would happen, almost certainly, is that the government would declare a state of emergency - and if you look at article 3.3 of Bunreacht, you'll see that gives them quite adequate powers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

These battlegroups which we are a party too are going to involve Irish troops in situations where they will be parties to conflicts. The enemy isn't going to differentiate, all forces in hostile areas will be fair game. Ireland on one side, some aggressive country on the other - When you pick sides, you aren't nuetral. Farce.

ninty9er

HOW MANY TIMES.

No matter what you believe. The UN isn't in the business of promoting war.

They decide if our troops can leave the country
in addition
The Government must approve. (BTW get your facts straight, the goevrnment works 52 weeks a year. Even when other TDs are out of a job when the Dáil is dissolved, the Government still has a job to do..It would not have to be "recalled")
in addition
The Dáil would have to approve. And going to war is one of the few things that a government could lose a vote on.

Irish troops will at NO STAGE be party to conflict. If you don't believe me, try and get hold of the 26 other heads of government of the EU adn they'll tell you!

Conflict RESOLUTION is and ALWAYS was the role of Óglaigh na hÉireann.

Manic Moran

Conflict RESOLUTION is and ALWAYS was the role of Óglaigh na hÉireann

Conflicts can often be resolved by militarily beating the crap out of someone if required, or at least threatening to do so. Not always, but it has its place in the diplomatic toolbag.

However, I thought the primary role of the DF was "To defend the State against armed aggression." I guess that could be a conflict resolution process as well, at least if they win.

NTM

Zambia

Neutrality is a crock

What good is a friend if they dont defend you and you are unwilling to do likewise for them in a time of need.What good is a sense of right and wrong if you fail to combat the latter.

If any EU member states soil was attacked by a non EU party , I would expect to see Irish troops fight for its defence. Just as French , German , UK and other EU nations would defend Irish soil if attacked.

The absence of the chance of such an occurance does little to hide the shame of the crime succesive irish goverments have rubber stamped.

A french conscript can die defending ireland and a Irish volunteer soldier can sit and watch France burn [again].

WoollyRedHat

I definitely support the Irish deployment to Chad, as it has a mandate and is not illegal.

However in the case of allowing American troops to use Shannon as a stopover point while carrying out now known rendition as well as aiding them for their illegal war has done away any claim we could have had to being fully neutral.

The fact they are still using it even with reports of rendition is ridicolous, so thanks Fianna Fail for that....

Fratton Fred

Ireland sold it's neutrality to Brussels...it cost €54bn if you're interested.

Scofflaw

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ireland sold it's neutrality to Brussels...it cost €54bn if you're interested.

Hmm...so it was a terribly good joke, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

Ninety9er, In true FF style you've dodged the question. Is nuetrality a joke?

You're the one who'd want to get your facts straight, Manic Moran has the correct role of the"defence forces" I'd love to know where you got your conflict resolution being the primary role of the Irish defence forces.

Now you state that the Dail has to approve any deployment - Fair enough but the Dail does not sit for 52 weeks in the year - fact. Yes I know the government are always on call and can be in a caretaker capacity but for the triple lock to work it is Dail, UN and government approval. So the Dail would have to be recalled. Again a fact.

Also you have completely ignored the reasons for why Ireland is nuetral in the first place. It is a falacy from DeValera not wanting to fight with the British during WWII.

Once deployed Irish troops will be fair game - Fact. My point which u seem to have missed is that once deployed we cannot remain nuetral.

Nuetrality is a sham, we aren't nuetral, we are pro-EU and pro-West - Fact.

And the UN may not be in the business of promoting war but an awful lot of it's members are - fact!

PS Fratton Fred - we sold a lot more then our nuetrality to Brussels, they got a bargain.

Manic Moran

My point which u seem to have missed is that once deployed we cannot remain nuetral.

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case: A genuine peacekeeping mission such as Cyprus may well have its participants regarded as neutral by both sides. But the presence of a UN mandate doesn't necessarily guarantee neutrality. For example, the Korean War. In the Chad case, I would be surprised if the Irish forces are regarded as neutral, mind.

NTM

nhughes100

I dont think the militia in Chad really know nor care whether the guy in front of them with the gun is nuetral or not.

purple'n'gold

nhughes100 wrote: »

I dont think the militia in Chad really know nor care whether the guy in front of them with the gun is nuetral or not.

Your average militia man in Chad probably has only a vague idea of what goes on outside his immediate area. (Of course this area could be the size of Texas). And to him all white men, / Europeans are the same, (and he probably thinks they all look the same). It would be naïve in the extreme to imagine that he would know (or care) the difference between an Irishman, and a (white) Frenchman. The colour of the flag would mean even less to him, he would probably assume that it’s just a regimental colour.

Scofflaw

So, generally agreeing that all the above is quite likely, and Irish troops in Chad will probably get shot at along with all the rest if there's shooting being done....so?

Irish troops being shot at on peace-keeping duties does not violate Irish neutrality. It's not even new. Ireland lost 47 killed in the Lebanon from 1978-2006.

Neutrality just means that we're not on a side. In a war, that often means getting shot at by both sides, whenever we're inconvenient to them. It's what Irish soldiers do.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

Scofflaw, for the last time we do take sides- Pro US, Pro EU and Pro West. In fact Pro who ever is giving us the money.

Scofflaw

nhughes100 wrote: »

Scofflaw, for the last time we do take sides- Pro US, Pro EU and Pro West. In fact Pro who ever is giving us the money.

Well, if that is the last time that's a blessing.


cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

If you're not up discussion for people who don't share your opinion then maybe this isn't the board for you.

Scofflaw

nhughes100 wrote: »

If you're not up discussion for people who don't share your opinion then maybe this isn't the board for you.

Hmm...tell you what, how about I decide that? I have no problem with any opinion, but this:

nhughes100 wrote:

Scofflaw, for the last time we do take sides- Pro US, Pro EU and Pro West. In fact Pro who ever is giving us the money.

is not debate by any stretch of the normal imagination. Apart from not being in capitals, it's the equivalent of simply shouting your opinion a bit louder.

We're certainly not informally neutral - we are, as you say, pro-EU, pro-West, pro-US. Militarily, however, we operate under the sanction of the UN - and only under the sanction of the UN. And while individual members of the UN are prone to warfare, that's irrelevant.

If you want to argue that the UN itself is pro-Western, and that by operating under its aegis Ireland is pro-Western, work away. But there's no point in claiming that military neutrality (or non-alignment in our case) is indistinguishable from economic/commercial/political neutrality, because that is not legally the case.

Either way, there's no point in simply shouting your opinion at me. It doesn't even annoy me, I'm afraid, and it certainly doesn't persuade me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

I was not shouting merely summarising and not wanting to repeat ad infinitum the arguments already made, you should withdraw this comment.

I'm not trying to annoy you, I don't know where you got this from. If someone having a different opinion annoys you then I stick to my suggestion that maybe this isn't the place for you, if you want to contribute stick to the argument and dont post unfounded claims about me or others that has no place in fact. I'm not even trying to persuade you, merely expressing my opinion.

Nickels worth of free advice, Don't take it so personally and don't accuse me of something I clearly did not do.

Scofflaw

nhughes100 wrote: »

I was not shouting merely summarising and not wanting to repeat ad infinitum the arguments already made, you should withdraw this comment.

I'm not trying to annoy you, I don't know where you got this from. If someone having a different opinion annoys you then I stick to my suggestion that maybe this isn't the place for you, if you want to contribute stick to the argument and dont post unfounded claims about me or others that has no place in fact. I'm not even trying to persuade you, merely expressing my opinion.

Nickels worth of free advice, Don't take it so personally and don't accuse me of something I clearly did not do.

Sorry - was this:

Scofflaw, for the last time we do take sides- Pro US, Pro EU and Pro West. In fact Pro who ever is giving us the money.

not addressed to me then? It looks like it is, what with one thing and another. It also looks like you are annoyed with me, rather than vice-versa, and would like me to go away and stop disagreeing with you.

I would strongly suggest you take your own advice. I am disagreeing with you (to some extent), but I'm perfectly willing to support my position by arguing it. I'm only asking you to do the same, rather than this kind of "for the last time" stuff.

As I said, you claim we're not militarily neutral because we're not commercially or politically neutral - but we are militarily neutral, so you have a case to make. Clearly, I think you haven't made it, but I don't have any problem with you doing so - or persuading me that you're right, since I think you're half-right already.

Militarily neutral = not taking sides in a war. What war are/were we taking sides in?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

I was getting a bit bored of repeating myself hence the last time comment, your suppostion of annoyance is presumptuous. Your comment - "Well, if that is the last time that's a blessing" seems that you were annoyed at my posts.

I have made my postion on nuetrality being a sham clear, there are 4 pages in this thread for all to read and make their own minds up.

Since u asked for a war we took sides on - how about the recent "coalition" invasion of Iraq? Irish army deployed to protect American military hardware. Nuetral?

Nobody has answered why Ireland is supposedly nuetral(again check previous posting of mine) It is an outdated notion that should be put to the people(again check previous posting) Apologies for the repetition.

Scofflaw

nhughes100 wrote: »

I was getting a bit bored of repeating myself hence the last time comment, your suppostion of annoyance is presumptuous. Your comment - "Well, if that is the last time that's a blessing" seems that you were annoyed at my posts.

Not at all - I just felt you'd gotten to the point of simply repeating yourself, without adding anything new to your argument. You appear to feel that way too.

nhughes100 wrote: »

I have made my postion on nuetrality being a sham clear, there are 4 pages in this thread for all to read and make their own minds up.

Since u asked for a war we took sides on - how about the recent "coalition" invasion of Iraq? Irish army deployed to protect American military hardware. Nuetral?

Yes, neutral. If people had attacked Russian planes going through Shannon at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, the same would have been done. All kinds of military aircraft use Shannon as a transit point. There's a list somewhere around - more than 90 different nations, I seem to recall. If people take up attacking any of the aircraft of any of those nations, the Irish army will be deployed to protect them - because it's Ireland's job to protect those aircraft in transit through Ireland.

We're neutral because we don't protect one side more than another. The reason we wind up protecting US planes particularly is because they are the ones people attack. If people choose to attack Chilean military aircraft, they will be offered the same protection.

nhughes100 wrote: »

Nobody has answered why Ireland is supposedly nuetral(again check previous posting of mine) It is an outdated notion that should be put to the people(again check previous posting) Apologies for the repetition.

You may well be right that Ireland should not be neutral - I have no strong feelings on that either way. I am only arguing that your claim Ireland is already not neutral is false.

cordially,
Scofflaw