Fine Geal Not Neutral

Elmo

Does this new stance on neutrality make Fine Geal out to be Hypocritical. Are we to take from this that Fine Geal just jump on the anti-Iraq war band wagon and that if they had been in government that they would have also allowed US planes land in shannon. Is Fine Geal equal to Fianna Fail?

Gay Mitchell

Irish Neutraity is a joke

Haven't FF said this before.

Also are they just trying to look like an opposition since Labour seem to be doing a better job.

Sparks

There was at least one FG TD actively supporting the use of shannon by the US at the time.

Where's the poll entry for "FG is wrong" btw?

Elmo

Perhaps Right was the wrong word to use rather

I see nothing hypocritical in the FG stance.

Since you may just happen to agree with the stance but disagree with them and the way they have used the shannon stituation for their own political game.

Neutrality is something you agree with or disagree with the poll does not represent that rather it represents your support to the party policy (even if you are not an FG voter).

Hope this makes sence.

Cork

I think all the partys in the Dail are in favour of nutrality. I think FG are the most luke warm to it.

Ryle O Dywer in this mornings Examiner newspaper listed how Ireland was not neutral during WW2.

Dev got back our treaty ports. But we were far from nuetral during WW2.

But FF do charish the principal & I think the Irish people do as well.

I believe FG have got it wrong again on this one.

sceptre

Leaving aside the fact that we're more lazy than neutral, my reaction to the announcements was "WTF"

Fine Gael have the greatest opportunity in the past ten years to shoot down a Fianna Fail government on economic issues, given that they've no idea of what they're doing. They've got the one TD in the Dail that I'm 100% sure understands economics (Richard Bruton in case anyone is wondering) and they're wasting their time on this. It's a vote loser regardless of which way you look at it. People who like our fuzzy warm "no we're neutral even though we'd openly go along to Nato meetings if we could" attitude won't like it. People who don't give a damn won't give a damn. People whose brains are working will be wondering why they're effectively doing their best to put FF in government for another five years by failing to attack the government on issues that the floating middle class will give a damn about (hint: it's in their pockets). People will vote for incompetent idiots who obviously lie to them (they did last time) but they won't vote for ineffective idiots who lie less (FG admit they don't know what they're doing).

It's not that they've got it wrong - it's that FF are currently a stationary target with shields down and they don't seem to have the balls to fire anything at them. In some ways at least they're recognising that neutrality is a pretty empty philosophy as long as we lack the means to defend ourselves in the event of any invasion. However, it is about the economy (stupid:)) and anyone with brains* will recognise that putting the blame for continuing recession on international problems and shopkeepers charging too much isn't going to be believed for long. They're failing to inform the uninformed and really need to go through the estimates books over the past few years and expose the mis-management that's been going on (if I can go through the stuff, I'm sure FG can spare someone for half a day to do likewise). I'm actually running out of parties I can consider voting for in the next election.


*yeah, I know they're pretty low on a per capita basis but I know at least ten people that use theirs on regular occasions.

dahamsta

Looks like Jawn Brutal has finally gotten his way on Europe and retaken the leadership by stealth. G'luck Enda, you're a leader in name only now boy. You can say goodbye to this voter's first preferences.

Oh, and what sceptre said.

adam

Éomer of Rohan

*snorts* Yeah Fine Gael are right. Right wing.

bonkey

Originally posted by sceptre
putting the blame for continuing recession on international problems and shopkeepers charging too much isn't going to be believed for long.

But if Ireland is so heavily dependant on foreign investment, then surely international problems are a major factor that we can do nothing about in the short-to-mid term?

As for shopkeepers charging too much...is that because of the Euro changeover, or just as a general thing?

jc

sceptre

Originally posted by bonkey
But if Ireland is so heavily dependant on foreign investment, then surely international problems are a major factor that we can do nothing about in the short-to-mid term?

That's completely off-topic for this thread (bold bonkey:D) but I suppose I did bring it up. Obviously the international factors are important, both because we are reliant on foreign investment and because we're still heavily dependent on both imports and exports (most of what we produce (software &c) is useless to us and we don't have oil or make cars). However, we're completely ignoring the prudence concept when making out estimates over the past few years. From 1982 to 1993 we were stoney broke. And we knew we were broke. Estimates were made on the basis of pessimism wrt tax receipts, pessimism wrt our balance of payments and we realised that we couldn't buy our way out of the problem if we didn't have any money to do it with. These days we're taking an optimistic view on tax receipts on the basis that recovery is only around the corner. I'm surprised the EU haven't stepped in by this time or that the OECD haven't stood at the corner and muttered under their breath - if the country was a business the local bank manager would be spitting blood.

As for shopkeepers charging too much...is that because of the Euro changeover, or just as a general thing?

It's a general thing in that they're still doing it (as in prices still going up rather than just staying tat slightly inflated levels). And it's obviously also a major factor in inflation. However, McCreevy has sworn blind recently that the overcharging is the main or only reason why our inflation is so high, ignoring that while government spending is lower over the past six months than it was in the same period last year, it's still higher than it was during the same period in the previous four years. We can't compare this year's soending to last year's spending as there were votes to be influenced last year. Essentially we're pumping money into the economy in an attempt to shore it up (and not in that sexy Keynesian way either). This is the weakness in neo-classical economics. It can't cope with a recession because when the market is slow to reach equilibrium there always has to be proper intervention. Pumping money into a market when you still think monetarism will work will always result in inflation. Unfortunately there's the next eelction to think of so they're doing it now. Fault lies with the government - we're not a nation of shopkeepers.

Originally posted by bonkey
As for shopkeepers charging too much...is that because of the Euro changeover, or just as a general thing?

jc

Well a packet of jacobs Kimberley was IR£1.15 in December 2001 in my local shop.
It is now €2.49-go figure:eek:
It's greed and people put up with it.

Regarding Fine Gael: theres nobody there that is effective.
Sceptre summed it up well:

it's that FF are currently a stationary target with shields down and they don't seem to have the balls to fire anything at them.

I mean after the last general election, they were at such a low ebb, you'd think, they'd get their act together and develope radical policies, rather than continuing obvious "pretend" and be shallow "popularist" themes.No the Borg Kenny has put the collective FG on a self distruct course instead.
star trek analogies in the politics forum...hmmm...
mm

Typedef

If the likes of Gay Mitchell had his way Ireland would in fact be supporting a deployable and tangable military aviation defence force as post September 11th, Mr Mitchell was advocating Ireland raising such a force for defence purposes.

Added to which is the fact the Fine Gael are traditionally the party most associated with the Garda and with the Army (due to the fact Collins' faction won the war) and it's hardly surprising that Fine Gael are seen at most opportunities to be right wing, militaristic and conservative.

Alas at least Fine Gael hasn't lied to voters barefaced about commitments on public service in (n) years, so perhaps it's time to exchange one group of corrupt, lying right-wing politicians for another?

shurg

Sparks

Typedef,

If the likes of Gay Mitchell had his way Ireland would in fact be supporting a deployable and tangable military aviation defence force as post September 11th, Mr Mitchell was advocating Ireland raising such a force for defence purposes.

With the Aer Corps flying them? With their safety record? I'd rather give everyone a stinger without training them...

Alas at least Fine Gael hasn't lied to voters barefaced about commitments on public service in (n) years, so perhaps it's time to exchange one group of corrupt, lying right-wing politicians for another?

No thanks. I'd sooner vote for Sinn Fein - and anyone that knows me knows how dire a situation would be required for that to happen...

Man,

It's greed and people put up with it.

And what are we meant to do? Tell the shopkeeper "Well, sorry, I don't feel like paying this much. Here's 2 euro instead." ?

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
And what are we meant to do? Tell the shopkeeper "Well, sorry, I don't feel like paying this much. Here's 2 euro instead." ?

Yes, that's exactly what you're meant to do. And if the shopkeeper doesn't want to sell you the biscuits for €2, go to another shop or do without.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,

And what are we meant to do? Tell the shopkeeper "Well, sorry, I don't feel like paying this much. Here's 2 euro instead." ?

Yes, if everything went up 50% in price in a year or so, trouble.
Now theres a campaign for FG - introduce competition authority with more teeth.
mm

Sparks

Meh and Man,
And exactly how is that going to work then? Biscuits are one thing - basic foodstuffs are another. And recall that we haven't many choices in terms of markets here - unless you're lucky enough to be near a large german market. And the further you have to go to get to the market, the higher your travel bill until it costs you more to get the product cheaper...

Basicly, Man's right - we need a competition authority with teeth.

Gorgeous George

Irish neutrality is a joke. Compare with Sweden, Finland and Austria. Real neutral countries.

Brussels will dictate to us whether we may be neutral or not. We have been bought and paid for.

Why did a government policy position during WW2 become an article of faith. Neutrality is cowardice dressed up as something creditable.

At least FG are taking a stand on issues rather than ducking and diving like the government parties.

QBall

Originally posted by Eomer of Rohan:
*snorts* Yeah Fine Gael are right. Right wing.

Compared to you, almost everyone is right wing. :-)

Originally posted by Sparks:
And recall that we haven't many choices in terms of markets here - unless you're lucky enough to be near a large german market.

Even then, you're hard put to find some products at reasonable prices. Find me a pint at a price even resembling that of 3 years ago and I'll buy you one.

Lucozade Sport (the fat bottle of non-fizzy stuff) is EUR2.05 in Spar and EUR1.50 in TCD's SU shop. I doubt the SU shop is selling it at a loss, and Spar has a much larger volume discount. Greed? Yes, I would call a 25%+ profit margin greed. B*stards.

Originally posted by Gorgeous George:
Neutrality is cowardice dressed up as something creditable.

I would disagree. Neutrality often takes a lot more courage than going along with one "side" or another. Unfortunately, many countries (Ireland included) cannot afford to be neutral.

I think it's time we had a long hard look at our "neutrality". I don't see how we can benefit from being neutral. It'd be nice to have the moral high ground every time there's a war on but being realistic there are some countries we can not afford to say no to without hurting ourselves. I don't like that, but it's reality. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't say no to the US every time they ask to refuel planes at Shannon. At the moment we're in the situation of telling people we're neutral and not acting on it. Why keep up the charade?

Not just that, but it's been like this for a long time. The USSR refuelled aircraft in Shannon on the way to Cuba during the Missile Crisis[1] and during WW2 RAF pilots often got to return to Britain while Luftwaffe pilots were interned. Was that neutrality?

Ireland has never been consistently neutral. It's time we stopped pretending.

[1] I seem to remember a TD mentioning this in the Dail recently. I saw the transcript on the web somewhere but I can't find it again.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Gorgeous George
Brussels will dictate to us whether we may be neutral or not. We have been bought and paid for.

Oddly enough, it was Washington that dictated to us whether we may be neutral or not in the end and while we have been bought and paid for, it appears that it was with Dollars and not Euros.

As for Fine Gail; it is largely a victim of post-Cold War centrist politics.

If one looks at Fianna Fail and Fine Gail historically, there was very little ground between them ideologically, with the main differentiation being one based upon that collection of skirmishes affectionately referred to as the Irish Civil War.

Nonetheless, Fine Gail did attempt to partially reinvent itself under the leadership of Garrett Fitzgerald in the 1980’s, when it moved towards a more liberal-secular social policy and attempted to introduce both abortion and divorce, in contrast to Fianna Fail’s far more conservative outlook.

However, as with most western democracies, the end of the cold war also signalled the beginning of the race for the political middle ground. Fine Gail was still attempting to redefine itself at this stage, while Fianna Fail, that was always able to reinvent itself when necessary with an absolute Machiavellian efficiency, was able to grab the all-important centre-right slot. With Labour’s electoral successes of the early 1990’s placing it in the centre-left position in the Irish political spectrum, this left Fine Gail without a place in Irish politics.

Add to this lack of ideological compass a series of uninspiring leaders and the Progressive Democrats poaching much of the “I want to vote for any centre-right party as long as it’s not Fianna Fail” vote and what you’re left with is a political entity that does not know if it’s left or right wing and in this confusion has been essentially in an inexorable decline for over a decade.

Cork

Originally posted by Gorgeous George
Irish neutrality is a joke. Compare with Sweden, Finland and Austria. Real neutral countries.

Brussels will dictate to us whether we may be neutral or not. We have been bought and paid for.

Why did a government policy position during WW2 become an article of faith. Neutrality is cowardice dressed up as something creditable.

At least FG are taking a stand on issues rather than ducking and diving like the government parties.

Our nuetrality is valued. Brussels will dictate. Tony Blair does not want to turn the EU into a military power. For this stance - he will get support from us.

Compare with Sweden, Finland and Austria. Real neutral countries.

Compare to Switzerland?

A real neutral?

We are not doing so badly.

Cork

Originally posted by The Corinthian

As for Fine Gail; it is largely a victim of post-Cold War centrist politics.

All partys including the socialists want the middle class vote. They have abandoned any iota of socialisim and became more or less conservative like the Conservatives.

FG are grasping as straws to reverse its flagging fortunes.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Cork
Our nuetrality is valued.

Valued to the point of blind orthodoxy?

Brussels will dictate.

As I’ve already pointed out, it was Washington and not Brussels that dictated to us whether we may be neutral or not in the end. What’s your response to that then?

Tony Blair does not want to turn the EU into a military power.

He has his own (British) reasons for that. It would be foolish to assume that he has our interests even vaguely in mind with that stance.

For this stance - he will get support from us.

Speak for yourself...

Compare to Switzerland?

A real neutral?

We are not doing so badly.

Considering that in the most recent conflict Switzerland refused even airspace to the coalition not to mention all the other instances of flexible neutrality that have already been highlighted here (you know, the one’s you’ve conveniently ignored), yes, we have done badly.

Unless you have another interpretation of reality you’d like to share with the group

Éomer of Rohan

All partys including the socialists want the middle class vote. They have abandoned any iota of socialisim and became more or less conservative like the Conservatives

Don't even TRY to defend this - it is plain wrong - a generalisation into which you sweep the socialists which makes it doubly wrong. Haven't you ever met an idealist or even a cynical older member of the socialist party?They have far from abandoned socialism.

He has his own (British) reasons for that. It would be foolish to assume that he has our interests even vaguely in mind with that stance.

He wouldn't wan the EU as a military power because this would mean handing some control of Britain's armed forces to France and Germany - which would lose him some of the centrist-right vote and especially given the 'special relationship' with America, it looks particularly unbeneficial. It is nothing to do with us.

Cork

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan

He wouldn't wan the EU as a military power because this would mean handing some control of Britain's armed forces to France and Germany - which would lose him some of the centrist-right vote and especially given the 'special relationship' with America, it looks particularly unbeneficial. It is nothing to do with us.

Well, I don't believe the EU should develop a military capability. To this end Blair is right. Tony Blair has indeed his own reasons - but opposing turning the EU into a military force has to be welcomed.

Considering that in the most recent conflict Switzerland refused even airspace to the coalition not to mention all the other instances of flexible neutrality that have already been highlighted here (you know, the one’s you’ve conveniently ignored), yes, we have done badly.

Switzerland has not a great record relating to WW2.

I favour Irish nutrality. I think that it has served us well. I think that we do not need hard and fast rules govering a policy relating to nutrality.

FG seem to want the complete abandment of netrality. I would completely oppse this or Ireland getting involved in pan European foreign policys or militay alliences.

Sparks

I favour Irish nutrality. I think that it has served us well. I think that we do not need hard and fast rules govering a policy relating to nutrality.

Well, I think we do. You cannot trust a politician, that's been proven over, and over, and over, and over again - both by the current majority and by the current minority.

How about the following rules :
1) We don't get involved in wars except in self-defence. That means no troops, no money, no logisitical support, no airspace exemptions. Grant the use of airspace in accordance with the law as needed, but inspections are mandatory and not "irish inspections" as we saw in shannon.
2) We don't deploy troops outside the country unless it's in a peacekeeping role, sanctioned by the UN and the Dail.

And then of course, there are some policies we should implement as well:

We support and push for reform of the UN security council. (We'd have no real influence of course, but it's like voting - your vote on it's own is pretty insignificant, but if you don't vote, someone else makes the choice for you.

We support the ICC.

We support the UN.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Switzerland has not a great record relating to WW2.

a) Offtopic

b) Irrelevant, unless you also want to assert that - for example - the Japanese were aggressors in WW2, so therefore we couldn't consider them as a neutral nation today despite their constitution.

c) Incorrect. The only time Switzerland sacrificed any aspect of its neutrality was when it gave in to foreign pressure along the lines of "If you continue with <action>, we will consider it an act of agrgression against us, and will not honour your neutrality any longer and invade and annex your nation".

The simple fact is that Ireland's neutrality is compared to the Swiss version, the Irish are doing very badly.

We are - at best - a nation who's own military does not involve itself directly in foreign conflict. However, we ally ourselves politically with one side, and offer that side material and logistical support, including to their military.

That is not neutrality. There were allies listed amongst the coalition of the willing who had less involvement than Ireland, and yet we somehow wish to claim neutrality?

jc

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Cork
Well, I don't believe the EU should develop a military capability. To this end Blair is right. Tony Blair has indeed his own reasons - but opposing turning the EU into a military force has to be welcomed.

Why? Seriously. You’re good at sweeping statements, but you have yet to actually back any of them up with an argument (let alone facts).

Switzerland has not a great record relating to WW2.

Again why? Sources please. Don’t bluff.

I favour Irish nutrality. I think that it has served us well. I think that we do not need hard and fast rules govering a policy relating to nutrality.

This is your opinion, and one that you have not, as I’ve pointed out, actually backed up. You may feel that Irish neutrality is a good thing that that has served us well, but from what you’ve said so far, all you seem to be basing this on is a warm fuzzy feeling you’re feeling in your tummy...

Éomer of Rohan

Well, I don't believe the EU should develop a military capability. To this end Blair is right. Tony Blair has indeed his own reasons - but opposing turning the EU into a military force has to be welcomed

Of course the EU should develop a military capability; what use is Europe going to be without the werewithal to defend itself from enemies without the benevolence of the USA - a benevolence which is at present very strained. Europe is going to be united - so they should start acting like they are going to be united; this means no succumbing to the pressure of reactionary groups within individual nations who wish to maintain their preeminence which exists only in that nation.

The EU needs to find an international niche which will give the foreign policy makers a vision - I believe that vision should be as a counterweight to the often inept foreign policy decisions of the USA - and how are the USA going to take Europe seriously unless it has a credible military - just look at the present US reaction to France and Germany!

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
I think that we do not need hard and fast rules govering a policy relating to nutrality.

Oh yes we do.

At the moment we're in a situation like a bloke who promises his girlfriend that he won't sleep with anyone else unless they're good-looking. Not much of a commitment. What we need is a situation where we don't get to sleep with anyone at all or just get out of the relationship. In other words, we're either neutral or we're not. Being neutral can still include taking part in peace missions approved by the UN. Being neutral does not give us leave to choose any conflicts we can take part in. There's obviously a grey area (which most people would like defined in one way or another) but it can include the former and can't include the latter. The core of the idea is pretty simple really.

Personally I still think they're wasting their time on this issue while there are other issues they can put the boot in; however there appear to be quite a few posters so far for whom this issue does appear to be important. And they certainly aren't all FG voters - I'd bet my life savings that Eomar isn't (just to name the one I'm sure of)* - so it's at least bringing up an important issue for discussion.

*I wouldn't vore for any political party blindly either but you'll just have to take my word for that. Here's where I'm tenpted to pop in a rant about people who would (for any party) but that's for another day.

Cork

My views on nutrality are personal. There are not backed up by facts. Just my own personal feelings on the subject.

I think, Ireland is a well respected member of the international community. We were involved in many UN sponsored iniatatives.

We were not a member of any allience with any vested interests.

In our history, we did not invade any other country - so we have no baggage.

Our contribution to peace making is more important to being a third rate member of a military allience.

We have a small population and I think that Irish Tax money would be spend better than on bullets, tanks and guns.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
Switzerland has not a great record relating to WW2.

By the same logic (which is inherently flawed by the way) the political party you support will be corrupt until some time around 2050AD

Logically (using Aristotle's modus ponens):
If A, then B
A

---

-->B


A = "Switzerland was once not a good example because of things some citizens may have done" OR "FF were corrupt because of things some members may have done"

B = "and will remain so forever"

The logic in both cases is flawed.

There's a petard being hoisted behind you. Are you on it or just watching it rise like everyone else?

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
In our history, we did not invade any other country - so we have no baggage.

Now I know I'm nitpicking but that's actually not true. Check into how (Scots) Gaelic was introduced into Scotland. Took an invasion and 400-year occupation of west Scotland by Irish people to do that before the Picts managed to subdue them in 811. It was a long time ago but not a crazy amount of time before Strongbow came bounding into Waterford. They also briefly invaded northern England in AD367 but that's so long ago that we'll forget about it. No country washes with white sheets. Except maybe Tibet:). You certainly can't base an argument on it.