Fine Geal Not Neutral

The Corinthian

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

You claim “Brussels will dictate” and state that “Switzerland has not a great record relating to WW2” and now you admit that these are just personal views? That they were never backed up by any facts?

Why on Earth did you bother posting if all you were going to do was to spout rhetoric and fabrication?

so we have no baggage.

Every nation has its baggage and the Irish are no exception:

"Other people have a nationality. The Irish and the Jews have a psychosis." - Brendan Behan

I think I know who he was talking about now...

bonkey

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

Nice sidetrack....but its nothing to do with what we were discussing. Being well-respected, or indeed being involved in UN-sponsored initiatives is neither a comment for nor against our being neutral.

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

Agreed, but the moment Ireland stops being viewed as a relatively neutral and reasonably impartial third party, and instead becomes viewed as a lackey nation who will join one side in the fray, cheer them on, and do all but wave their flag for them, our contribution to peace-keeping will be relegated to "that nation wot lets the US use their airports, innit?". At that stage, we will become a third-rate non-member of a military alliance.

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

Sure, but it still has nothing to do with your argument. As I asked before...Kuwait didnt deploy a single soldier outside their borders, didnt fire a shot, nor take any direct action in the recent war in Iraq. All they did was allow the US to use their national territory to further their (the US') plans for war.

Were they neutral?

You don't need to spend money on bullets, tanks and guns to be non-neutral...you just have to actively take sides, and that is exactly what the Irish government did, and will continue to do.

I'd be the first to agree that it is in Ireland's best interest to be militarily neutral, but the last to agree that this is where they are at today, nor that that they have really been there any time recently.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

You don't need to spend money on bullets, tanks and guns to be non-neutral...you just have to actively take sides, and that is exactly what the Irish government did, and will continue to do.

I'd be the first to agree that it is in Ireland's best interest to be militarily neutral, but the last to agree that this is where they are at today, nor that that they have really been there any time recently.

I completely agree with this.

Elmo

In relation to invading scotland, I think we allowed them much freedom to the extent that Scotland became its own country and was not ruled by dublin, I.e we went and settled in scotland. We also took slaves from Britian. But then these things happened a very long time ago, were are only free from british rule since 1922 and some may even go as near as 1932 or even nearer 1949. and our currency was linked to the Sterling up to 1979.

WW2 are nuetrality was about Economics, as it was to a large extent an economic war. But also after a war of independence and a civil war not many Irish people wanted to be in another war which could ruin our freedom. Also American and British troops were sent up to the north while german troops were not handed over to the americans or british but kept in Ireland at the curragh.

I believe in our nuetraility even if the present government and the FG party do not. I think it is Hypocritral of the FG party to say that it was wrong for american troops to be in shannon and that it is wrong that we joined pfp (nato lead), when we can now see that if FG had been in government at this time they to would have do exactly the same think with out any regard for what people think.

I think at the moment that the government should respect or neutrality up until we take a vote on it.

Trebor

As far as i am concerned the govrnment did what i expected them to do which was that which kept america happy. we can not afford to be a neutral country as we can not defend ourselves.

we rely on Britan and America for most of our defense.

the consiquanes(sp?) of us telling the US that they could not use shannon would have been very damaging towards our economy which is heavly relient on American Investment. If any more american companies where to pull out of Ireland we would be back in the 80's ( except we now have such a high cost of living that it would not be worth investing here).

The only reason that we have been moslty neutral was because no other country gives a toss what Ireland thinks or does. they see us as just another american bought small country which does what it's told so as not to upset America.

Sparks

Terbor,

we rely on Britan and America for most of our defense.

Do we? Just out of interest, against whom are we defending?
Correct me if I'm in error, but I was of the impression that we have never actually had to face an invasion force in the entire history of the republic.

our economy which is heavly relient on American Investment

Then we're in trouble, for two reasons:
1) The US economy is in serious trouble, with a foreign debt in excess of $6.4 trillion, a debt ceiling that just got raised by $1 trillion to $7.39 trillion, and a total fiscal deficet in excess of $44 trillion.
2) We're a member of the EU. And they paid for much of our infrastructural development (despite our horrific mismanagement and poor value obtained with those funds). So if we ostracise ourselves from the EU by supporting the US in a US/EU spat, we're not only picking the losing side, but we're also opening ourselves to a lot of grief from a group with the legal ability to sanction us.

Gorgeous George

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.

We are not in a military alliance with America. We are however in a military alliance with other members of the EU. It is called the European Rapid Reaction Force which has a HQ in Brussels which decides where and when the force is deployed. In theory the Irish government can decline to send troops on a deployment but I think in practice political pressure would be applied regarding our duty to pay back our debts to the other member states.

Sparks

GG, that holds up to about four seconds worth of consideration. If you accept that we are in an EU military alliance because we could be asked to send troops in a peacekeeping role as part of the RRF, or because the budget decisions in the Irish army have all been about rapid deployment for the last few years, then you must accept that we're in a military alliance with the US because a) we just provided them with logistical and political support during the war on Iraq, and b) because we get a lot of training and equipment from US sources. Both those reasons are of equal weight to your reasons for our being in an EU alliance.

Which isn't to say that I don't think we're about as neutral as the Vichy government...

Trebor

Originally posted by Sparks
Terbor,
Do we? Just out of interest, against whom are we defending?
Then we're in trouble, for two reasons:
1) The US economy is in serious trouble, with a foreign debt in excess of $6.4 trillion, a debt ceiling that just got raised by $1 trillion to $7.39 trillion, and a total fiscal deficet in excess of $44 trillion.
2) We're a member of the EU. And they paid for much of our infrastructural development (despite our horrific mismanagement and poor value obtained with those funds). So if we ostracise ourselves from the EU by supporting the US in a US/EU spat, we're not only picking the losing side, but we're also opening ourselves to a lot of grief from a group with the legal ability to sanction us.

*sigh*
I ment that in the aventuallity of us having any issue that requires military muscle we would be sadly laking and we would have to ask either America or Britan for surpport.

Yes we are a member of the EU and they have provided us with lots of money but that money will start to decline as we become a net contributor to the EU, when we start giving money.

also we rely on American bussiness investment not govrnmental :rolleyes: so as the american economy starts to go down and with the Euro gaining against the dollar companies in Ireland will start to feel it. Exports are more expensive and our economy relies on our exports

Cork

Originally posted by bonkey


I'd be the first to agree that it is in Ireland's best interest to be militarily neutral, but the last to agree that this is where they are at today, nor that that they have really been there any time recently.

jc

I pretty much agree with you.

But what is the solution.

Do we require a constitutional referendum on the issue?

Or If we witness another "Hitler" would we be compelled to stay neutral by our constitution - if there was an admendment put into it regarding nutrality

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
Do we require a constitutional referendum on the issue?

Probably. Some people interpreted the tack-on to the last Nice referendum as such (though I must confess that my cynical nature didn't allow me to do that). It was certainly touted as such.

Or If we witness another "Hitler" would we be compelled to stay neutral by our constitution - if there was an admendment put into it regarding nutrality

We did the last time a little schickelgruber sent his armies across Europe. Depends on the amendment. It could include allowance for actions sanctioned by the UN general assembly OR security council. An amendment on neutrality, by its very nature, would preclude the government from joining in or supporting any action that they just felt like. That would be the point of such an amendment. It's a hand-tier. If it doesn't tie any hands there isn't a point.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Or If we witness another "Hitler" would we be compelled to stay neutral by our constitution - if there was an admendment put into it regarding nutrality

Depends how you word things, really, doesnt it.

How hard would it be to put in place a neutrality clause which had a "get out" clause where the government could ask the people to decide on a specific issue.

In other words...neutral until the people say otherwise, and the people saying otherwise is on a case-by-case basis, not on a "you changed your mind once, so now we're never neutral again".

jc

Cork

I really am not sure about that. . Nutrality should be a principle and should not be put for for debate too often.

I think that if the government were to put nutrality into the constitution it would probably be a watered down version - an aspiration to nutrality. (Leaving the final decision with Dail).

But Bonkey, putting a form of words into our constitution preventing us from joining military alliences or deloying our army in conflict may be a solution.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Cork
I really am not sure about that. . Nutrality should be a principle and should not be put for for debate too often.

Unfortunately, neutrality as a principle is a flawed and imaginary concept in that we can only be as neutral as we are allowed to be. The neutrality of countries is frequently ignored by belligerents, either overtly (such as in the case of Denmark in World War II) or covertly (such as in the case of Laos in the Vietnam War).

As such we could have all the constitutional clauses stating our neutrality, and none will stop someone else dropping a few hundred thousand troops on our shores - Which is what Britain considered doing during World War II, as Ireland and her ports were strategically valuable and any invasion would have been a relatively easy affair. Any well-meaning principle of neutrality would not have helped us.

If there were ever in the distant future a conflict between Europe and America, for example, a neutral Ireland would be the equivalent of Belgium in 1940. Both sides would demand right of passage for strategic reasons, and it’s doubtful that our waving a little “We’re Neutral” flag would make a damned bit of difference.

Which brings us back to my earlier point to you Cork about, by your own admission, basing such matters on opinion rather than reason and fact. If you are to make such sweeping statements, it’s important that you base them on more than just a gut feeling. Otherwise, if not questioned and put to the test on a regular basis, such foolish, well-meaning opinions may end up damning us all.

Trebor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
As such we could have all the constitutional clauses stating our neutrality, and none will stop someone else dropping a few hundred thousand troops on our shores - Which is what Britain considered doing during World War II, as Ireland and her ports were strategically valuable and any invasion would have been a relatively easy affair. Any well-meaning principle of neutrality would not have helped us.

If there were ever in the distant future a conflict between Europe and America, for example, a neutral Ireland would be the equivalent of Belgium in 1940. Both sides would demand right of passage for strategic reasons, and it’s doubtful that our waving a little “We’re Neutral” flag would make a damned bit of difference.

I agree, we do not have the defensive power to stop any country from invading us. The Swiss on the otherhand are a neutral country and have an army to back that up