Is it time to join Nato

So if we ignore the UN what legality would such an aid mission have?

So we are back to this, you favour a situation where an Irish government would be within it's rights to unilaterally decide to go into the north.

If you are now backpedalling form that and saying international law forbids it, what is the point of having that choice in the first place?

Ah, another one of the 'might is right' crew or in this case 'Do as I say, not as I Do'

Dancing on a pinhead there Francie. Any country 'could' invade another country, just like Ireland now. That doesn't mean that they do. Your circular argument is exposed tbh. Nothing else there but long drawn out dancing on pinheads.

What are you on about? No one is arguing that Ireland abandons international law or goes on some mad savage invasion spree once the triple lock is done away with. You have ZERO faith in this nation, which is ironic.

The implication that we cannot be trusted with our tiny military?

Removing the triple lock gives us more autonomy in foreign policy and use of our military. We are not behold to vetos from Russia or the UK.

Oh, I have. I am repeating myself again and again, but alas you want to try and 'win' by obtuseness. If you don't get it by now, its not my fault.

No, I didn't say I would be happy that they 'invade' the North, I never said that.

It's clear to all that you are not engaging in good faith, which is not really a surprise.

I am running away from the debate?

Christ almighty!

Giving the Government and Dail more power to adjudicate on things foreign policy, does not mean one is happy that they use these powers in an unwise and frankly disastrous fashion in regards to invading NATO members at a whim.

The fact that you have this weird and laborious logic speaks volumes of debating 'tactics' you want to go down. It's frankly just abnormal at this stage.

I have explained myself numerous times. It's fine, if you don't get it, it really is.

Mark, we were talking about peacekeeping missions which is what the triple lock is about.

That you keep referring to them as 'invasions' when it suits you tells me all I need to know. You talked yourself into a cul de sac of your own making and are back pedaling furiously.

So, here we have it along with an attempt to divert.

You are happy to allow the government (whosoever that might be) to unilaterally decide on the use of the military on the basis of a wing and a prayer that they don't decide to use that power in a way you find morally wrong.

Ok, I get the picture.

Geography is our greatest defence, our greatest weakness is our inability to defend that same geography.

People don't want us to increase defence spending, that's fine, people don't want us to join a defensive alliance, that's also fine, but at the same time people are happy to tolerate a foreign state effectively policing our airspace.

We, as a nation, need to decide what exactly we want to do in terms of defence.

Exactly why we need a coherent defence policy and be part of an alliance, be that Nato or the EU with a common defence policy, but that will also mean us having to up our own capabilities.

Unless of course we adopt the stance you seem to prefer, just bend over and accept what happens.

Overseas missions are not defence policy, I've been on them, have you? The reality is peacekeeping is done at the behest of the DFA.

How can a defence policy be coherent when we claim neutrality but rely on another nation for security? A nation some maintain occupies a part of the country.

We don't rely on another nation. We have no threat to our sovereignty militarily. We might just as well spend billions protecting ourselves from alien invasion.

Sovereignty is more than repelling invaders, it's about protecting your borders, and maintaining the safety of the state. Right now we rely on the UK to protect our airspace.

Regardless if there is on threat to our sovereignty why would we need any army?