Would you like to see EU Military Bases in Ireland?

Corsendonk

So would you like to see EU forces based in Ireland to help defend the EU border. So a military airbase in Shannon, German and Swedish Leopards training in the Curragh etc?

As part of Lisbon Treaty member states have agreed to come to the aid of a member state under attack but future planning may envisage deployment of mixed member state forces to the border areas and Irish defence spending is inadequate to defend our skies and seas of a major section of the EU border alone. I know the tricky topic of British forces will be raised.

OS119

Corsendonk wrote: »

So would you like to see EU forces based in Ireland to help defend the EU border. So a military airbase in Shannon, German and Swedish Leopards training in the Curragh etc?

As part of Lisbon Treaty member states have agreed to come to the aid of a member state under attack but future planning may envisage deployment of mixed member state forces to the border areas and Irish defence spending is inadequate to defend our skies and seas of a major section of the EU border alone. I know the tricky topic of British forces will be raised.

the simple answer you'll get from the Germans and Swedish is that Irish defence spening should be raised to be comsenurate with the threat (however you choose to define it), the idea that Irish defence spending doesn't cover Irish security needs isn't a 'set in stone' objective reality like the depth of the Atlantic or the distance between Dublin and Cork, its just a political issue that the public and the politicians they elect conive in.

you post also raises the issue of 'an attack on one is an attack on all' - does that mean that, should the situation required it, an Irish mech Inf battlegroup should be stationed on the Polish/Belorussian border - or is this just one-way traffic?

Corsendonk

OS119 wrote: »

you post also raises the issue of 'an attack on one is an attack on all' - does that mean that, should the situation required it, an Irish mech Inf battlegroup should be stationed on the Polish/Belorussian border - or is this just one-way traffic?

Of course european military units should be moved around to encourage cooperation among them for one, and it may be just as simple as bulking up navel and air operations here with fellow EU member states forces. Constant cripe here is that the Irish military expenditure is so low, its never going to be sufficient for navel and air operations unless anyone is planning a coup soon to divert a substantial amount of GDP into arms deals.

mgmt

Hell No.

OS119

Corsendonk wrote: »

Of course european military units should be moved around to encourage cooperation among them for one, and it may be just as simple as bulking up navel and air operations here with fellow EU member states forces. Constant cripe here is that the Irish military expenditure is so low, its never going to be sufficient for navel and air operations unless anyone is planning a coup soon to divert a substantial amount of GDP into arms deals.

sorry, i don't get you - European militaries do co-operate to improve interoperability, they try doctrines/training/equipment out against a military that might do things differently, they 'work-up' units together so they could work together in an operational setting, and they slot forces together to create a 'whole' thats bigger than the sum of the constituant parts. they primarily do it through NATO, though its also done bi/multi-laterally - there isn't a need for the EU to get involved as well.

why should other states go the hassle and expence of putting naval and air assets in Ireland, primarily for the benefit of Ireland, just because Ireland doesn't want to pay for its own assets? you seem to be suggesting that its a reality that other EU states just have to get used to within a context of EU mutual defence - the problem is that there isn't an EU mutual defence, there's an obligation to provide support, and the nature of that support is to be determined by each state. it could be an Armoured Division, but it could also just be 50 litres of diesel and some warm words - and both cover the definition of 'support' as stated in the treaty.

The Highwayman

No

vulcan57

Yes please:D

Fratton Fred

vulcan57 wrote: »

Yes please:D

maybe they could rotate airforces, so you can work on your photo album:D

OS119

Fratton Fred wrote: »

maybe they could rotate airforces, so you can work on your photo album:D

thats how NATO operates in the Baltic states and Iceland. good blueprint...

ETA: the easiest, and probably most immediately profitable for both sides, exercise would be an Air Defence Exercise - designate location 'X' as target, array the RBS70's and other systems around it (air-mobility exercise thrown in?) and ask the RAF to whack it. Ireland gets to do a 'real world' test of its systems - as well as a 'no notice, go now - i don't give a shit if its 5pm' exercise, the RAF gets to play with an air defence system its not tried before and do some low-level flying in a new environment, and nobody needs move any equipment or personnel outside their borders.

win win.

Steyr

tac foley wrote: »

A more full explanation of that comment would be appreciated, especially for those on this forum who actually live in the north or on the mainland of UK.

tac

I believe he is referrering to Northern Ireland and its History and the English Forces History in Ireland.

Pretty obvious really IMO.

OS119

the man has a point...

Steyr

OS119 wrote: »

the man has a point...

He does indeed, but it was totally obvious that some elements of Irish "Society" would find them unwelcome.

tac foley

As this thread has a [slight] chance of being turned into something felt as distasteful in some quarters I have deleted my posts from it and will take no further part in it.

tac

Steyr

tac foley wrote: »

As this thread has a [slight] chance of being turned into something felt as distasteful in some quarters I have deleted my posts from it and will take no further part in it.

tac

No need to really this has been dragged thru the "mud" enough, I for one would welcome EU Bases in Ireland no matter who they are. Its possibly the way its heading anyway a United States Of Europe, we already have an EU Battle Group so why the hell not.

The Highwayman

Steyr wrote: »

possibly the way its heading anyway a United States Of Europe

And your ok with that?

OS119

tac foley wrote: »

As this thread has a [slight] chance of being turned into something felt as distasteful in some quarters I have deleted my posts from it and will take no further part in it.

tac

and now i look like i'm agreeing with the bloke who raised the issue, not the bloke who indicated that it was ridiculous!

personally, in a vain attempt to get the thread back on track, i'd love to see Ireland invite other EU states to exercise in Ireland - and for Irish units to exercise abroad - it would be good for the DF to host a French expeditionary air wing (and to do all that AirLand training that the DF miss out on), it would be excellent training for a Joint UK/Irish naval task force to conduct anti-piracy exercises off the west coast, and it would be a massive boost for an Irish infantry coy and an AD battery to deploy by C-130 and C-17 to Benbecula for an AirLand exercise...

even without any kind of mutual defence treaty, the mere fact of Ireland involving itself in such exercises would send a stiff message, and it would have a significant, and positive, training impact on the whole of the DF.

Steyr

The Highwayman wrote: »

And your ok with that?

Why not? The Majority of us ( European Nations ) already have a Single Currency its seems to be going in that direction.

The Highwayman

Steyr wrote: »

Why not? The Majority of us ( European Nations ) already have a Single Currency its seems to be going in that direction.

Wow, I really dont know how to respond to that. I guess your just another one of the sheeple. Voted yes to Lisbon did you?

OS119

The Highwayman wrote: »

Wow, I really dont know how to respond to that. I guess your just another one of the sheeple.

pretty dismissive, no?

nice attitude, i'm sure lots of people will see that and think 'hmm... there's a guy who really knows his stuff and brings a lot to the table'.

not.

The Highwayman

OS119 wrote: »

pretty dismissive, no?

nice attitude, i'm sure lots of people will see that and think 'hmm... there's a guy who really knows his stuff and brings a lot to the table'.

not.

'Not'? The 1990's called they want their comeback returned :rolleyes:

Dismissive maybe, shocked yes.

If someone does not see the problems in sleepwalking head first into a euro-super state then I dont see how I can help them. Are you of the same opinion there is nothing to worry about it?

The constant erosion of our civil rights and liberties as well as the disappearance of our nationhood is something very close to my heart and something I keep up to date with.

Here are 2 videos you should look at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLGu-dTH6i4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSYMpuCFaQ&feature=related

OS119

are you going to contribute coherently to this thread, or are you just going to post rants and links?

Steyr

The Highwayman wrote: »

Wow, I really dont know how to respond to that. I guess your just another one of the sheeple. Voted yes to Lisbon did you?

How so? Whats wrong with wanting a United Europe all contributing for eachother?

BrianD

Firstly, Ireland's so called neutrality has always been a sham motivated solely by not entering into a military alliance involving the UK while they are present in the six counties of northern Ireland. We didn't stand up to fight fascist tyranny in the second world war and we smugly relied on the might of NATO to provide our defences during the cold war.

If we are a part of Europe and benefit from the EU then we should be willing to defend it or contribute to it's defence. At the same time, I don't know whether providing military bases here is required apart from agreed access in times of need. While this may seem to contradict the above, there should not be pressure on us to spend the percentages of GDP that other nations within the EI spend on the military. SOme of these nations are motivated by greater plans then the defence of the EU.

Gray

Just who would we need to defend the EU border against?

Due to our geographic location there are very few country's capable of launching an invasion here & I can't think why they would.

concussion

This little rock would be a pretty sweet place to postion air assets and build up troop numbers for a push into Europe. Good sea-ports, several large airports, numerous airfields, nothing but ocean to the north and west and feck all the locals can do about stopping you.

tac foley

concussion wrote: »

This little rock would be a pretty sweet place to postion air assets and build up troop numbers for a push into Europe. Good sea-ports, several large airports, numerous airfields, nothing but ocean to the north and west and feck all the locals can do about stopping you.

And THAT is just about the best summation of the rationale behind the need to invade and occupy Ireland that I've seen in years. Every point is valid.

tac

BrianD

concussion wrote: »

This little rock would be a pretty sweet place to postion air assets and build up troop numbers for a push into Europe. Good sea-ports, several large airports, numerous airfields, nothing but ocean to the north and west and feck all the locals can do about stopping you.

I think at this stage, Ireland is strategically useless to anyone but its allies.

If you have Ireland as part of your alliance then we area very useful. If you don't then the effort required to secure Ireland militarily would outweigh any benefits. There is practically nobody who could invade us with ease - apart from our near neighbours.

Plus in the past 100 years nobody has attempted in any meaningful way and one could argue that we expelled the one world power that did occupy us.

Gray

BrianD wrote: »

I think at this stage, Ireland is strategically useless to anyone but its allies.

If you have Ireland as part of your alliance then we area very useful. If you don't then the effort required to secure Ireland militarily would outweigh any benefits. There is practically nobody who could invade us with ease - apart from our near neighbours.

Exactly the point I was trying to make

Most of the country's who have the ability to invade are NATO/EU members & are the one's we would be having joint bases/exercises with anyway.

The only other potential candidate would be Russia in a return to a Cold War situation. I'm pretty sure that NATO have plans covering that unlikely scenario & we would get help whether we asked for it or not.

In the long run further EU integration could well lead to an EU army rather than national ones but not any time soon.

eia340600

BrianD wrote: »

Firstly, Ireland's so called neutrality has always been a sham motivated solely by not entering into a military alliance involving the UK while they are present in the six counties of northern Ireland. We didn't stand up to fight fascist tyranny in the second world war and we smugly relied on the might of NATO to provide our defences during the cold war.

This is exactly the point.They defended us against nothing.Any increased expenditure in the military would be money wasted to defend ourselves against a non-existent threat.

BrianD wrote: »

SOme of these nations are motivated by greater plans then the defence of the EU.

That, to me, is a perfectly good reason not to be involved in any "EU Army" operations.

DylanJM

This is exactly the point.They defended us against nothing.Any increased expenditure in the military would be money wasted to defend ourselves against a non-existent threat.

I wouldn't say the threat is non existent. The odds of another large scale conflict breaking out during this centuary are pretty high I reckon. I mean if that's your attitude we might as well disband our entire defence force, "'cos the threat's non existent"

eia340600

DylanJM wrote: »

I wouldn't say the threat is non existent. The odds of another large scale conflict breaking out during this centuary are pretty high I reckon. I mean if that's your attitude we might as well disband our entire defence force, "'cos the threat's non existent"

A conflict that we would be involved with?I think not.

I wouldn't call for the disbandment of our Armed Forces completely.They have a role in UN peace keeping missions and assist with issues on a national level such as emergencys, like floods, and helping the Gardaí to maintain order.

twinytwo

concussion wrote: »

This little rock would be a pretty sweet place to postion air assets and build up troop numbers for a push into Europe. Good sea-ports, several large airports, numerous airfields, nothing but ocean to the north and west and feck all the locals can do about stopping you.

... and the americans could park their carrier fleets of the west coast and flatten the place?.. they can build it up all they like. " taking" ireland would be a waste of time

twinytwo

DylanJM wrote: »

I wouldn't say the threat is non existent. The odds of another large scale conflict breaking out during this centuary are pretty high I reckon. I mean if that's your attitude we might as well disband our entire defence force, "'cos the threat's non existent"

The next large scale conflict will prob be over water.. in which case everyone loses.. or it will be everyone versus the commies.. again everyone loses. so it would be a waste of money unless we can somehow become a super power?

BrianD

eia340600 wrote: »

This is exactly the point.They defended us against nothing.Any increased expenditure in the military would be money wasted to defend ourselves against a non-existent threat.

I wouldn't agree. Ther was a notional threat that the Warsaw pact nations could invade Western Europe and if so would continue all the way to the Atlantic. There was a balance of power maintained by NATO that was advantageous to us. It also kept us out of the communist sphere of influence i.e. an invasion doesn't have to be military it could be a civilain regime backed up a larger power.

That, to me, is a perfectly good reason not to be involved in any "EU Army" operations.

I don't agree. The "EU army" would have a clear mandate and it would not be to fight wars on behalf of former powers. We're in Europe we should be fully signed up to the EU army.

johngalway

Wouldn't have a problem with EU forces being stationed here. Wouldn't like to see British forces stationed here.

tac foley

johngalway wrote: »

Wouldn't have a problem with EU forces being stationed here. Wouldn't like to see British forces stationed here.

And there, at last, is the elephant in the room. Strangely enough, the EU forces include those of UK, which is a major player in the organisation and, along with France, the only nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed members of the EU.

RN? Possibly. Even now we have a few spare boats. Taking our turn of course.

RAF? Again on a rotation basis with those few EU member states whose air forces have the necessary aircraft type to achieve the mission.

That mission, I hasten to remind you - is the Defence of Ireland, NOT its occupation.

The most unlikely event is what you call the stationing of British Army units of any kind on the soil of the RoI, even on a temporary rotational basis, and simply because of the unfortunate 'recent' history of the two nations that you, in your oblique fashion, have reminded us about.

Of course, this would also mean that the events of even MORE recent history within Europe would also have to be taken into account, and with that in mind, it's obvious that no German Armed Forces would be welcome in France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, The Former Yugoslavia [including modern Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia], The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Greece and Crete, Italy, Rumania or Hungary, let alone the UK. The UK, of course, could easily follow up your idea by banning the Swedes, the Norwegians and Danes from setting foot on the soil of UK - after all, THEY invaded the place back awhiles, and left their languages, customs, place-names history and genes behind.

Just like they did in Ireland, for that matter, when they invaded and occupied your country. They even named two of the counties of Ireland [Waterford and Wexford] and founded your capital city. And while we are at it, let's not forget the Normans, who, when THEY came over, were certainly NOT the English.

As for the Italians, well, apart from the Nordic countries, they wouldn't be welcome anywhere in Europe. 'Romans? Hell you just cant trust 'em not to invade you and then build all those bloody roads everywhere...'

Please remember, Mr Galway, that we are not all land-grabbing women-beating, baby-eating [thanks for the reminder, iceage] house-burning murderers, just like you are not all high-street-bombing shoot-in-the back terrorists.

tac

iceage

tac foley wrote: »

that we are not all land-grabbing women-beating, house-burning murderers....

You forgot baby eating Tac.

tac foley

iceage wrote: »

You forgot baby eating Tac.

There...fixed it.

Thanks for that, pal. ;=)

tac

concussion

BrianD wrote: »

Plus in the past 100 years nobody has attempted in any meaningful way and one could argue that we expelled the one world power that did occupy us.

One could also argue that it took us several hundred years to do so, which leads to the conclusion that an occupying force would have leapfrogged into Europe before we finally stopped arguing amongst ourselves and did something about removing them. I also submit that an force intent on taking over large swathes of Europe will not really care about what the rest of the world thinks of its occupation of Ireland, and so would not create a political means for us to take our country back.

eia340600 wrote: »

I wouldn't call for the disbandment of our Armed Forces completely.They have a role in UN peace keeping missions and assist with issues on a national level such as emergencys, like floods, and helping the Gardaí to maintain order.

I would be of the opinion that UN missions do more for the DF than the DF do for the UN. Chapter 6/7 missions give a small, underfunded force the means to operate with other nations and keep skills current. They also offer the soldier a chance to operate 'for real' even if it is in the peacekeeping role. However, there are plenty of other countries supplying thousands of troops per year - they don't need us specifically so there is no need to keep 'UN only' troops paid and equipped at the expense of taxpayer.

The rest of the roles you suggest are not military - an expansion of the Civil Defence and Garda PO units would achieve that. The ultimate role of a military is to do bad things to bad people, UN missions are a means to keep ready for this end, not an end in themselves.

twinytwo wrote: »

... and the americans could park their carrier fleets of the west coast and flatten the place?.. they can build it up all they like. " taking" ireland would be a waste of time

They could. What would they do about the tens of thousands of people hiding out with weapons? You cannot take over a country from the air, eventually you will need to put the PBI on the ground to shoot, bomb and bayonet their way across the country.

otmmyboy2

Just my 2 cents but I personally cant see the issue anyone would have to allow other E.U. troops to come to Ireland on rotation or some other similar system, it would promote Irish Army morale if they were actually competing against other E.U. troops in wargames etc, and it is done in nearly every major E.U. country without any hoo-hah. Look at France. It has an even worse history with England than we do and it welcomes Brit troops regularly to do mountain warfare training in the Alps and is more than welcome in Britain, ie. the GIGN training with the SAS in counter terrorism, which in reality is about the only thing any troops stationed in Ireland would be likely to be defending against. They also regularly compete against and with each other in training ops, ie the French Navy Rafales in June this year being controlled by Brit faos.
However I am also wary that, apart from the IRA Ireland has a very neutral stance and the allowing of foreign troops into Ireland could be seen as compromising our neutrality.
It is very much up to the individual and personally I would be glad to see E.U. troops in Ireland. Including British troops.

eia340600

BrianD wrote: »

I wouldn't agree. Ther was a notional threat that the Warsaw pact nations could invade Western Europe and if so would continue all the way to the Atlantic. There was a balance of power maintained by NATO that was advantageous to us. It also kept us out of the communist sphere of influence i.e. an invasion doesn't have to be military it could be a civilain regime backed up a larger power.

The WPN were never going to bypass the rest of Western Europe to come and get us and well you know it.

BrianD wrote: »

I don't agree. The "EU army" would have a clear mandate and it would not be to fight wars on behalf of former powers. We're in Europe we should be fully signed up to the EU army.

But you said yourself...

BrianD wrote: »

SOme of these nations are motivated by greater plans then the defence of the EU.

The entire point of the European Coal and Steel Community, which has become the EU, was to maintain peace.The French and the Germans didn't want any more wars sparking up in Europe and I don't see how the creation of a grandiose army will help that..

The only countries outside the EU that could realistically threaten us are the US, India and the China.The US has enough economic trouble to deal with and is far too involved with us and the rest of Europe, India are preoccupied with the Chinese and this is how China fights its wars...

Chinese hub to become greatest commercial centre in Europe


First glimpse of China plans shows massive scale of the project




The Chinese developers behind Creggan's proposed Chinatown plan for the Euro Chinese Trading Hub "to become the greatest commercial and trade centre, tour centre, cultural centre, amusement centre and international conference centre in Europe", according to the design statement for the project.

Having seen a preliminary design statement on the project, the Westmeath Independent can exclusively reveal that the investors behind the project believe that Ireland would be an ideal location for the trade centre due to its location in northwest Europe and the fact that its economic status and trade industry potential have not yet been fully developed. Because of this the investors believe goods could be ordered from a centre in Ireland from Europe, America, Africa, the Middle East and even West Asia.

And while the blueprint may change as plans progress, the preliminary plans include a Chinese Palace, two five-star hotels, apartments, a six-hole golf course, a railway station, two bus stations, a medical centre and a fire-fighting centre. The blueprint includes plans for an exhibition region measuring 445,000 square metres, a commercial district measuring 264,000 square metres, a retail service area measuring 90,000 square metres and a residential area measuring 186,000 square metres. The businessmen behind the project also anticipate a peak footfall in the region of 80,000 to 100,000 people.

Ireland is being favoured over other European countries because of its status as the second largest software exporter, second only to America and the fact that 40% of computer products are manufactured in the country, according to the design statement.

The investors also believe that the transport network between Ireland and other European countries is good, pointing out that it only takes about an hour or an hour and a half to reach many of Europe's principal cities from Dublin.

The design statement described Athlone as a thriving centre town located in the heartland of Ireland and pointed out that it is in a good position in terms of transportation, being close to the main transport artery and also having a railroad passing through it.

"It holds a strategic location that is preferable for the development of trade and transportation for the medium and longterm," the statement reads.

However, the design statement also mentions plans for the establishment of a new airport near Athlone in the near future, something it said would fully equip the Euro Chinese Trading Hub with global infrastructure so as to achieve further prosperity.

The design statement stressed the importance of environmentally friendly design and said it would also be people-oriented in design. It also hopes the centre would become a world-class centre for tourism, leisure, recreation, business collaboration and international conferences and exhibitions.

The project incorporates four independent and interdependent functional blocks of an exhibition centre, a residential area, a retail service area and a commercial area with the residential area, retail service area and commercial area forming a triangle that encloses the exhibition area.

The exhibition centre is to consist of ten large scale independent trade and exhibition halls and ten independent small scale special trade and exhibition halls, a Chinese Palace and a service centre. The large scale exhibition halls each measure in the region of 35,000 to 40,000 square metres while the smaller more exclusive trade and exhibition halls are to measure between 2,000 and 2,500 square metres. The Chinese Palace is to measure in the region of 20,000 square metres and will be composed of an elliptic, radial sphere, which will function as a significant site for large scale commercial, trading and cultural exchanging sites for the Chinese provinces. The exhibition area will also include a small railway station, measuring 1,000 square metres.

The commercial district measures some 264,000 square metres, taking in a five-star hotel, which is made up of two buildings and measures 62,000 square metres, while the serviced apartments, also taking up two buildings, measure 15,000 square metres. The commercial district also includes a youth hostel, measuring 20,000 square metres; a cinema, measuring 12,000 square metres; an arts centre, measuring 12,000 square metres; a recreation centre, measuring 20,000 square metres; a massage centre, measuring 40,000 square metres; a multi-function building, measuring 20,000 square metres; a medical centre, measuring 4,000 square metres and a fire-fighting centre, measuring 4,000 square metres.

The design statement reads: "The commercial area is well appointed with supporting services to meet the needs of businesses and living from the domestic investors and tourists."

The retail service area of the project measures 90,000 square metres, taking in a five-star themed hotel, measuring 33,000 square metres; a multi-functional entertainment hall, measuring 32,000 square metres; a conference facility measuring 3,000 square metres; a catering facility, measuring 1,000 square metres and a storage building, measuring 12,000 square metres.

Taking up 186,000 square metres of the development, the residential area includes independent villas with nine buildings, measuring 6,000 square metres; garden houses with 96 buildings, measuring 161,000 square metres; a primary school and kindergarten, measuring 15,000 square metres and a building for other support facilities, measuring 4,000 square metres.

The design statement adds that the project will also have other tourism and cultural attractions, such as river boating tours, tower mounting tours, riverside fairs, a cultural plaza, an arts-performing tour, a New Year pride parade, fireworks shows over weekends and a Chinese Tower count down on New Year's Eve.

The businessmen behind the project clearly expect large crowds to flock to trading hub as the design statement reads: "Since the building area for the project is huge and the future pedestrian flow is busy, it is estimated that future peak flow may exceed 80,000 to 100,000 people.

Therefore, organisation for external traffic to the project site is particularly important."

For this reason at the junction of the exhibition region, the retail area and the residential area there will be a railway station and a bus station and there will also be a second bus station at the entrance square of the exhibition region.

While this blueprint is a preliminary one and the project is still in its infancy, despite work going on behind the scenes for over two years now,

Quote:

Chinese set to invest billions in Ireland
The Celtic Dragon is born


By
JAMES O'BRIEN

Irishcentral.com




The Irish economy could soon be flooded with Chinese Yen

Call it the Celtic Dragon, but Chinese companies are set to invest billions in Ireland in an attempt to gain a foothold in Europe.

Distressed countries such as Ireland and Greece are being targeted by the Chinese to begin a major expansion like what they did in Africa in recent decades.

It begins next month when a group of Chinese investors hope to green light a $60 million investment in Athlone in Westmeath involving a "Chinese hub: of companies.

Prime Minster Brian Cowen has confirmed that he has met with the Chinese consortium and given his support to the project

"It's about exploring the potential of this idea and I have met with some of the promoters to see if we can proceed with it," he told the Irish Independent newspaper.

Local newspapers have dubbed the project "Bejing on the Shannon"

The plan involves bringing 2,000 Chinese workers to build a "Chinese hub" of factories on a 600-acre plot of land outside Athlone.

If built the hub will eventually employ 8,000 Irish staff. It is understood a new school, a railway station and hundreds of factory units and apartments would also be built.

In return the Chinese would get access to the lowest corporation tax rates in Europe and access to the euro zone for their products. Tariffs and quotas imposed by the EU and individual countries would be bypassed.

The Chinese are also focused on investment opportunities in Greece, another European country undergoing very hard times.

Ireland is seeking new ways to build on its reputation for supporting hi-tech foreign manufacturers such as Intel, and Chinese investment is high on the list.


(friendly colonisation???)

eia340600

BrianD wrote: »

I wouldn't agree. Ther was a notional threat that the Warsaw pact nations could invade Western Europe and if so would continue all the way to the Atlantic. There was a balance of power maintained by NATO that was advantageous to us. It also kept us out of the communist sphere of influence i.e. an invasion doesn't have to be military it could be a civilain regime backed up a larger power.

The WPN were never going to bypass the rest of Europe to come and get us, and well you know it.

BrianD wrote: »

I don't agree. The "EU army" would have a clear mandate and it would not be to fight wars on behalf of former powers. We're in Europe we should be fully signed up to the EU army.

But you said,

BrianD wrote: »

SOme of these nations are motivated by greater plans then the defence of the EU.

The only countries I see as having any possible threat to us are India, the USA and China.

India is to preoccupied with China.
US are too involved with us and the rest of Europe.
China, well China have a tactic that I think I'll name friendly colonisation...

Manic Moran

The WPN were never going to bypass the rest of Western Europe to come and get us and well you know it.

Those ocean-going landing craft were built for a reason. The Soviet fleet's amhibious capability wasn't sufficient that it could land a force with a realistic chance of holding a beachhead in the UK or France, but they certainly could carry enough to hold a beachhead in Ireland. It would be a very sound opening move to a European conflict. They apparently put some effort into it, they had better maps of Ireland than the Irish Army had.

NTM

tac foley

Manic Moran wrote: »

Those ocean-going landing craft were built for a reason. The Soviet fleet's amhibious capability wasn't sufficient that it could land a force with a realistic chance of holding a beachhead in the UK or France, but they certainly could carry enough to hold a beachhead in Ireland. It would be a very sound opening move to a European conflict. They apparently put some effort into it, they had better maps of Ireland than the Irish Army had. NTM

Having noted the FSU's rather large collection of Ropucha and Ivan Rogov amphibious assault support ships let's not overlook the fact that the sight of these items tootling up in the direction of Ireland might just arouse an element of suspicion in the minds of anyone catching sight of them.

tac

johngalway

tac foley wrote: »

Please remember, Mr Galway, that we are not all land-grabbing women-beating, baby-eating [thanks for the reminder, iceage] house-burning murderers, just like you are not all high-street-bombing shoot-in-the back terrorists.

tac

Quite well aware of all that Tac, and as you're well aware I have many many British friends. That said, I still do not want their army on ROI soil

Avgas

Is this auld horse still being flogged? Avgas has been away a while and am wondering. EU bases in Ireland? Its EU money we'll be needing NOT bases.

BTW many countries have sensitivities over what friendly troops may come and play on their territory for exercises...which is where its at...we should be welcoming Swedes...and French...and whoever to come play in Curragh. Just military professionalism. Personally I've no problem with BA people at all...or RN, RAF.....but given renewed RIRA?CIRA activity it would be a security and PR no-no.

As an aside, I think Norway had a big thing about German mountain troops NOT being allowed to come and play in Norway during the 1960s....1970s...not sure if its resolved today. [probably].....but it was an example of two allies inside an alliance agreeing not to co-operate for the nicest possible reasons.......:rolleyes:

Sgt. Bilko 09

there wouldn't really be a need only other than having a air support role from other EU countries such as Holland have based F-16'S in baldonnel for a short period of time and also has based subs in cork naval base for longer periods of time so i think we've gotten use to the fact that we have supported it in the past it just hasn't been in the media but i'm sure if anything was to come of an EU base in ROI there would be some sort of issue with protests and so on.
Same way america uses shannon for all sorts that has been long forgotten about dont think this would become an issue.

OS119

Avgas wrote: »

...Personally I've no problem with BA people at all...or RN, RAF.....but given renewed RIRA?CIRA activity it would be a security and PR no-no.

As an aside, I think Norway had a big thing about German mountain troops NOT being allowed to come and play in Norway during the 1960s....1970s...not sure if its resolved today. [probably].....but it was an example of two allies inside an alliance agreeing not to co-operate for the nicest possible reasons.......:rolleyes:

i'd disagree on the PR/political front, one of the things that gives the dissidents 'growing room' is the complete absence of any kind of 'jointness' between the UK and Ireland in the military sphere - the very absence of it (compared to the Franco-German brigade, the Luftwaffe deployment to Lithuania, and all the myriad of other everyday, no fuss indicators of freindship and trust that every other European country takes part in) gives an indication that actually the war isn't over, and from thats its possible to construct a rationalé that a continuation of the 'the war' is national policy.

the logic being that if friendly neighbours co-operate militarily (joint exercises, exchange tours, joint purchasing etc..), and Ireland and the UK don't do any of that, ergo Ireland and the UK are not friendly neighbours.

if France and Germany can form a joint Brigade, and Germany and Poland can hold joint land exercises on Polish territory that used to be German territory, and Switzerland (probably the most neutral country ever) can have joint exercises with French ground and air forces in Switzerland, what message does it send to dissident republicanism that the UK and Ireland can't have any kind of co-operation in the same field?

the argument of 'we need to be a bit sensitive about this' is writing dissidents a blank cheque to define the security relationship between the UK and Ireland.

otmmyboy2

Avgas wrote: »

Its EU money we'll be needing NOT bases.

If EU troops are stationed in Ireland they would have leave and would spend money in irish businesses, ie shops, gym etc, probably not that much but its still something.

Sgt. Bilko 09

oh and also forgot to mention we are still part of the nordic battle group which means there will have to be swedish, norwegian, finnish, estonia air force aircraft on irish soil along with there sea craft and other military hardware.

OS119

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

oh and also forgot to mention we are still part of the nordic battle group which means there will have to be swedish, norwegian, finnish, estonia air force aircraft on irish soil along with there sea craft and other military hardware.

sorry, you missunderstand the nature of the EU BG concept and doctrine.

a) the sub-units that make up the EUBG's do not form a single unit that sits - or trains - in one location waiting for a deployment order, they stay, seperately, in their own countries and only form into the BG if required.

b) if they do form up, they do so around the 'lead nation' within the BG, and on their territory - Sweden is the lead nation, if there's any forming up to be done, it'll be done in Sweden, not in Ireland.

c) the EU BG concept has no maritime or air assets alloted to it - it is an infantry battle group with armour, artillery, signals, logistics, engineering, CIMIC, C-IED, and medical support. it has no fighters and no naval vessels as part of its make up.