Leo is the new king of Ireland.

McMurphy

oscarBravo wrote: »

What neutrality?

Sorry, forgive me if I have it wrong, but I thought the state (Ireland) was considered a neutral state, no?

Leo thinks so too.

Leo wrote:

“Ireland is a neutral country, we do not join military alliances, we will not be joining Nato, we will not be part of a European army,” he said.

That neutrality ^^

So based on my question, does the Taoiseach get to decide whether the country is neutral?

It's not a loaded question btw.

seamus

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Sorry, forgive me if I have it wrong, but I thought the state (Ireland) was considered a neutral state, no?

Leo thinks so too.


That neutrality ^^

So based on my question, does the Taoiseach get to decide whether the country is neutral?

It's not a loaded question btw.

There is no actual, formal definition of neutrality.

However it's usually limited to a nation's position on armed conflicts, or potential armed conflicts. It doesn't mean the country is required to be ambivalent in all international matters.

This is not an armed conflict, or even a potential one.

kerry cow

Looking at results of a few on line polls and 66% of people do not agree with expelling russian diplomats from Ireland .
We live in dictatorship country , where get we get to vote but the establishment does what it wants regardless of what representatives we have .
It's the civil service machine /agenda that runs ireland .
Also ireland is only now like a local councillor is to the dail.
And the dail is like a local council to Europe .
We are ruled by a civil service that is answerable to eu and that why the brits won't take it no more .
We are nodding dogs , end of

charlie14

Podge_irl wrote: »

Their "concerns" are the core issue of the referendum. There is no way to address them which is what you seem not to be understanding.

I understand perfectly what some peoples concerns are.
As apparently, in his own rather ham-fisted way, does An Tánaiste and deputy leader of Fine Gael.
What you seem to not understand, or are unwilling to, is that concerns, which as you yourself put it, "are the core issue of the referendum", (as indeed would be the case in any referendum),can if not addressed become the primary reason for a failure to get acceptance for a referendum proposal.

You may look on those concerns are unimportant but according to media reports today, after Coveney`s lobbed hand grenade, the government are taking notice with a statement that it will introduce additional safeguards "above and beyond" the normal legislative process to minimise the possibility of future changes to abortion law.

What that entails we will have to wait and see, but with the mistrust many people have in political promises it is becoming rather messy imho.

Podge_irl

charlie14 wrote: »

I understand perfectly what some peoples concerns are.

I never said you didn't.

charlie14 wrote: »

What you seem to not understand, or are unwilling to, is that concerns, which as you yourself put it, "are the core issue of the referendum", (as indeed would be the case in any referendum),can if not addressed become the primary reason for a failure to get acceptance for a referendum proposal.

They could only be addressed by having a completely different referendum.

oscarBravo

charlie14 wrote: »

What you seem to not understand, or are unwilling to, is that concerns, which as you yourself put it, "are the core issue of the referendum", (as indeed would be the case in any referendum),can if not addressed become the primary reason for a failure to get acceptance for a referendum proposal.

How would you propose addressing their concerns?

The only way I can see to do so is to pollute the Constitution with the sort of nonsense that we fudged into it to get the divorce referendum passed. I would be vehemently opposed to doing that, and would in fact probably vote against any such measure.

charlie14

Podge_irl wrote: »

I never said you didn't.



They could only be addressed by having a completely different referendum.

What you said was " there is no way to address them which is what you seem not to be understanding."

From today`s media reports it appears the government understand those concerns will be problematic and are looking at ways to address them, but I get your point.
With what now appears to be further additions to the proposed law for regulation of termination of a pregnancy it is now becoming increasingly messy.

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

How would you propose addressing their concerns?

The only way I can see to do so is to pollute the Constitution with the sort of nonsense that we fudged into it to get the divorce referendum passed. I would be vehemently opposed to doing that, and would in fact probably vote against any such measure.

I`m no legal eagle. But I would have thought the government would have recognised those concerns and sought advice from those that are before publishing the proposed wording that if the referendum passes would replace Article 40.3.3 in the Constitution.
Rather than now only after Coveney expressing these concerns the government saying it will introduce safeguards "above and beyond" the normal legislative process to address them.

Podge_irl

The "above and beyond" thing is a complete faff and is nothing more than empty platitudes. They can't do anything legislative that can not be overturned by a simple Dail majority.

The concerns are that abortion will be a purely legislative matter. The goal of the referendum is that abortion will be a purely legislative matter.

Edward M

Podge_irl wrote: »

The "above and beyond" thing is a complete faff and is nothing more than empty platitudes. They can't do anything legislative that can not be overturned by a simple Dail majority.

The concerns are that abortion will be a purely legislative matter. The goal of the referendum is that abortion will be a purely legislative matter.

That's the way I read it too. To introduce anything else that can't be overturned by a dail majority would mean having to put something else in the constitution, another referendum for that!
There's no point in going round in circles, if and when repeal is passed, whatever legislation is passed after that is subject to possible further change at any time by a parliamentary vote in favour of that change.

charlie14

Podge_irl wrote: »

The "above and beyond" thing is a complete faff and is nothing more than empty platitudes. They can't do anything legislative that can not be overturned by a simple Dail majority.

The concerns are that abortion will be a purely legislative matter. The goal of the referendum is that abortion will be a purely legislative matter.

That basically is the concern of some, Coveney included.
That any legislation should this referendum pass can be overturned by a simple Dail majority.

Personally I cannot see anything legislative under the present proposed terms of this referendum that could change that either, but from yesterday`s statement of additional safeguards "above and beyond" the normal legislative process they have crossed that Rubicon and are looking at having some serious explaining to do.

As I said, sounds messy, and you know what they say about politics when you are explaining.

Zubeneschamali

charlie14 wrote: »

That basically is the concern of some, Coveney included. That any legislation should this referendum pass can be overturned by a simple Dail majority.

The politicians were too cowardly to implement the judgement in the X case for 20 years.

In what Universe are they going to liberalise our laws beyond the cover they have given themselves with the Citizen's Assembly and Oireachteas Committee?

charlie14

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The politicians were too cowardly to implement the judgement in the X case for 20 years.

In what Universe are they going to liberalise our laws beyond the cover they have given themselves with the Citizen's Assembly and Oireachteas Committee?

Who knows, and not saying it is my view, but from people I have been in the company off when the subject came up, quite a few expressed the opinion that it was leaving an open door where they would have no say if there should be further liberalisation in the future.
Whether that was concern over abortion, concerns that the 12 period could be extended or just general distrust of politicians, difficult to know.

Either way I can see all the above being being planks in the no campaign. Especially now after Coveney and this latest Government statement of legislation "above and beyond" the normal legislative process.
A statement which sounds like gobbledegook to me, but now that it is out there will be like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Sorry, forgive me if I have it wrong, but I thought the state (Ireland) was considered a neutral state, no?

.

First you have to define a neutral state. There are various different definitions of neutrality. One definition has it that unless you have the means to defend your borders within your own capacity, then at best you are a dependent state, but certainly not neutral.

Put it a different way. Say China invaded Ireland. Would you expect the rest of the EU to stand by and say that is none of our business because Ireland is a neutral state? Then consider Russia invading Poland, and the question of what we should do.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

So based on my question, does the Taoiseach get to decide whether the country is neutral?

.

If it is not in the Constitution then it is a matter for the Government, subject to their accountability to the Dail.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

First you have to define a neutral state. There are various different definitions of neutrality. One definition has it that unless you have the means to defend your borders within your own capacity, then at best you are a dependent state, but certainly not neutral.

Put it a different way. Say China invaded Ireland. Would you expect the rest of the EU to stand by and say that is none of our business because Ireland is a neutral state? Then consider Russia invading Poland, and the question of what we should do.


If it is not in the Constitution then it is a matter for the Government, subject to their accountability to the Dail.

Austria, a fellow EU member, had no difficulty when refusing to expel Russian diplomats in defining its position regarding neutrality.

"Austria is a neutral country and sees itself as a bridge-builder between East and West"

For Forks Sake

charlie14 wrote: »

Austria, a fellow EU member, had no difficulty when refusing to expel Russian diplomats in defining its position regarding neutrality.

"Austria is a neutral country and sees itself as a bridge-builder between East and West"

Austria also has a far-right party which aligns itself with Putin as part of it's government.

So you're comparing apples with wheelbarrows.

Podge_irl

charlie14 wrote: »

Who knows, and not saying it is my view, but from people I have been in the company off when the subject came up, quite a few expressed the opinion that it was leaving an open door where they would have no say if there should be further liberalisation in the future.

They have the exact same say that they have in literally every single other one of the laws we have

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

First you have to define a neutral state. There are various different definitions of neutrality. One definition has it that unless you have the means to defend your borders within your own capacity, then at best you are a dependent state, but certainly not neutral.

Put it a different way. Say China invaded Ireland. Would you expect the rest of the EU to stand by and say that is none of our business because Ireland is a neutral state? Then consider Russia invading Poland, and the question of what we should do.






If it is not in the Constitution then it is a matter for the Government, subject to their accountability to the Dail.

In fairness, I did say that my question wasn't a loaded one, I was genuinely curious as to whether or not the Taoiseach could decide in a statement that we were a neutral country in one breath, but not neutral about something concerning a different country in the next.

My question stands as I don't feel truly feel like it's been answered, is it within the remit of the Taoiseach alone to decide what (if any) definition of neutrality (or not) applies to the country?

I know Enda was all for abandoning any notion that we were even viewed as being neutral during his tenure, but that's for a different thread.

charlie14

Podge_irl wrote: »

They have the exact same say that they have in literally every single other one of the laws we have

That indeed would be the case if the referendum passes.

At this point if you cannot see as far as they are concerned they would be voting away a constitutional protection to be replaced by legislation that can be changed at any time by a simple Dail majority, then there is nothing much more I can say to you.

charlie14

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Austria also has a far-right party which aligns itself with Putin as part of it's government.

So you're comparing apples with wheelbarrows.

Regardless of what their government leanings are, personally I believe it is something we as a supposedly neutral country should also have considered.
As is we are giving our backing to a country who on the advice of their security services assured us without any doubt that Iraq had a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
One that furthermore is intent on leaving the EU without the slightest regard for the economic damage it will do our state, while we simultaneously to expelling Russian diplomat are sending trade missions to Russia attempting to lessen that economic damage.

Podge_irl

charlie14 wrote: »

That indeed would be the case if the referendum passes.

At this point if you cannot see as far as they are concerned they would be voting away a constitutional protection to be replaced by legislation that can be changed at any time by a simple Dail majority, then there is nothing much more I can say to you.

I can quite easily see their concerns, even if I disagree with them.

What I can not see is what on earth your point is with regards to how the government, and Leo in particular, have somehow handled this poorly by not allaying their concerns. Which is where this started - this thread is about Varadkar after all. You seem to think it was somehow a failure on the part of the government to not address their concerns, but that makes absolutely zero sense given what the referendum actually is.

charlie14

Podge_irl wrote: »

I can quite easily see their concerns, even if I disagree with them.

What I can not see is what on earth your point is with regards to how the government, and Leo in particular, have somehow handled this poorly by not allaying their concerns. Which is where this started - this thread is about Varadkar after all. You seem to think it was somehow a failure on the part of the government to not address their concerns, but that makes absolutely zero sense given what the referendum actually is.

This government is led by Varadkar, and as the sign on Harry S Truman`s desk said should this go pear shaped, that is where the buck will stop.

In a referendum it is the governments duty to address any concerns that may hinder the passing of a referendum they have proposed.
We are now in the situation where when the wording to replace Article 40.3.3 is known, we have the deputy leader of Fine Gael, and the second most senior officer in the government, talking about an unconstitutional two thirds Dail voting lock, and a government stating it will introduce additional legislation "above and beyond" the normal legislative process to address those concerns.

If this all goes pear shaped, how in Heavens name do you not think as leader, of not just the main party proposing this referendum, but the leader of the government, walking away without having a problem?

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

In fairness, I did say that my question wasn't a loaded one, I was genuinely curious as to whether or not the Taoiseach could decide in a statement that we were a neutral country in one breath, but not neutral about something concerning a different country in the next.

My question stands as I don't feel truly feel like it's been answered, is it within the remit of the Taoiseach alone to decide what (if any) definition of neutrality (or not) applies to the country?

I know Enda was all for abandoning any notion that we were even viewed as being neutral during his tenure, but that's for a different thread.

As I said, if something isn't in the Constitution, and neutrality isn't, then, like any other policy, it is a matter for the Government of the day, who are obviously subject to the approval of the Dail, which is a particular constraint in the current Dail.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Austria, a fellow EU member, had no difficulty when refusing to expel Russian diplomats in defining its position regarding neutrality.

"Austria is a neutral country and sees itself as a bridge-builder between East and West"

Austria is Austria, and has its own foreign policy concerns. Its proximity to former Eastern European states that were once under Russian influence pays a role.

As for Ireland, as I set out here, or in another thread, our number one foreign policy objective has to be the reversal of Brexit, with number two being as soft a Brexit as possible. Looking through that prism, solidarity with the UK and our EU partners on issues of concern to them is of vital importance.

Remember, we should act in our own self-interest.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Austria is Austria, and has its own foreign policy concerns. Its proximity to former Eastern European states that were once under Russian influence pays a role.

As for Ireland, as I set out here, or in another thread, our number one foreign policy objective has to be the reversal of Brexit, with number two being as soft a Brexit as possible. Looking through that prism, solidarity with the UK and our EU partners on issues of concern to them is of vital importance.

Remember, we should act in our own self-interest.

What type of Brexit we end up will will come down to Britain, and regardless of soft, hard or anything in between will have a detrimental economic effect on this country.
Britain is determined to do their own trade deals, where outside of EU control and regulation will be a threat to our agricultural exports.

I would not see us kicking out Russian diplomats while we are sending trade mission to Russia attempting to plug that hole as acting in our own self-interest.

Edward M

charlie14 wrote: »

What type of Brexit we end up will will come down to Britain, and regardless of soft, hard or anything in between will have a detrimental economic effect on this country.
Britain is determined to do their own trade deals, where outside of EU control and regulation will be a threat to our agricultural exports.

I would not see us kicking out Russian diplomats while we are sending trade mission to Russia attempting to plug that hole as acting in our own self-interest.

I can't see Britain being a threat in regards a trade deal with Russia right now.
In fairness there has to be some solidarity against these rogue Russian actions, it wouldn't be a great message to anyone to have them think we are OK with it, as long as they're dealing with us.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

What type of Brexit we end up will will come down to Britain, and regardless of soft, hard or anything in between will have a detrimental economic effect on this country.
Britain is determined to do their own trade deals, where outside of EU control and regulation will be a threat to our agricultural exports.

I would not see us kicking out Russian diplomats while we are sending trade mission to Russia attempting to plug that hole as acting in our own self-interest.

Russia is immaterial to Ireland's foreign policy priorities.

Trying to persuade the UK that working together through the EU is the best way forward is our number one priority. Showing solidarity on this issue with them clearly demonstrates that.

Secondly, if that isn't working, making sure we are at the heart of Europe and at the heart of the European response to external issues is vitally important in order to remind our EU colleagues of our role within Europe and our wish to work closely with them.

Everything else in foreign policy doesn't really matter at the minute.

James Brown

Russian institutions do a lot of business in Ireland.

125 Russian-linked companies have raised €103 billion through Irish funds operations since 2007
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/russian-companies-sanctioned-over-ukraine-linked-to-ireland-1.3440975

Is our loyalty dependent on trade or a moral and/or political stance?
The problem a lot of people seem to have is it being decided without much debate.
As regards doing the right thing as it were, we are still happy to do business with the like of Russia and China.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Russian institutions do a lot of business in Ireland.



Is our loyalty dependent on trade or a moral and/or political stance?
The problem a lot of people seem to have is it being decided without much debate.
As regards doing the right thing as it were, we are still happy to do business with the like of Russia and China.

We have been working in solidarity with our European comrades to impose sanctions against Russia.

https://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-coverage/eu-sanctions-against-russia-over-ukraine-crisis_en

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Russian institutions do a lot of business in Ireland.



Is our loyalty dependent on trade or a moral and/or political stance?
The problem a lot of people seem to have is it being decided without much debate.
As regards doing the right thing as it were, we are still happy to do business with the like of Russia and China.

Its nothing of note to either side, one diplomat expelled, there will probably be a response of similar portion on their side later.
We haven't broken off diplomatic relations with Russia or anything like.
We have showed solidarity with Britain and Europe, also major trading partners as well as stakeholders in border negotiations.
One diplomat being expelled from Ireland is about as much news in Moscow as another snow shower.