Is it time to join Nato

In your scenario, if the UNSC voted for a peacekeeping mission in Northern Ireland, but the UK blocked it with a veto, then, even if the EU decided to participate without a UN mandate in that peacekeeping mission, we would be unable to do so, thanks to your constitutional Triple Lock.

You never get beyond the kneejerk reaction, do you? So funny to see where you end up.

But we can't, if we have a constitutional triple lock.

Calling it a "humanitarian" mission won't wash with a Supreme Court judge.

Kneejerk stuff again from you. Hilarious.

The Nato countries, and in particular the bigger contributors, are all doing very nicely out of the arms industry, earning millions from the wars in Iraq, Yemen etc etc. If Ireland were to join we would need to get into that money spinner and we don't have the heavy industry for that.

We do have surplus young people for any wars though. So that would be a win, reducing unemployment and the need for housing. However these wars mean refugees and if we, as the best little boy in Europe, are already taking in thousands of refugees from this war, which started with the Nato-backed coup, then we would be in a lose-lose situation.

Wow there horse...who said anything about putting the triple lock in the Constitution?

Are you setting up arguments for people so you can rail against them again?

Look, the Triple Lock is going nowhere, conclusive numbers don't want to join NATO so the argument is kinda over blanch. Not really interested in what your moral compass would be satisfied with.

I said you seemed to want the 'days of colonialism and imperialism back' (which you never had any problem with) if you wanted to allow us to waltz into anywhere we want militarily or otherwise. That is what you want to do after all, is it not?

*In an instance when we were taking action to aid our own people in what we constitutionally claimed to be our own island, I said we would have been morally right to proceed.

So, ignore the Triple Lock if the time and situation suits you?

Then why in gods name are you dying on this hill when in the next sentence you would advocate just ignoring it? Its bi-polar type of reasoning.

We wouldn't have been entering another country Mark. Constitutionally, at that time, we laid claim to NI, you might have missed that.

Oh right, the Constitution of Ireland is sacrosanct and supersedes the rules of NATO, the UN and international Law.....

I am sure all the other members of the UN and NATO will understand that, when they take their turn dismantling our state.

LOLZ

It's hilarious in a way the rabbit holes you dig for yourself, Francie. You die on a hill for the Triple lock, giving past imperial powers a huge say in Ireland's defence policy, then in the same breath you say, "Sure, we can march into another NATO country, and it will be grand because of our constitution, and sure to hell with the triple lock in this case...."

You come across as a bit deranged tbh.

Like they 'dismantled' Russia after it invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea mark? You know that is not how it works, please live in the real world. Just a couple years after they did that even Irieland was over there glad handing them and looking for their vote at the UN.

LOLZ indeed. Wait'll blanch arrives with his 'we'd have been bombed back to the stone age' stuff because we sent an aid mission in to help our own people. LOLZ again.

Logic?

Mark and Blanch for years on here: 'You cannot enter another country to aid people or you'll be bombed back to the stone age and ostracized from the international community'

Also Mark and Blanch: 'what do you mean you want a triple lock on where we send our defence forces? We want to be able to send them where we want to'.

😁😁

😁 Changing the narrative now I see,

You were consistently told that nobody was advocating for an 'invasion' but you of course ignored that and used 'boards' to construct an argument for me that I never made and lambasted me for it. Stock behavior by you that others have called you out on, as well as me.

You are of course gilding the lily about the reaction to a 'humanitarian mission'. You have no idea how the international community would have reacted. I supplied evidence from Hansard and contemporary sources that the likely outcome would have been a diplomatic one, with us agreeing to withdraw after high level negotiations with a British government that knew there was a crisis.

YOU went straight to 'bombing us back to the stone age' fantasies.

Your 'anti EU' 'pro Russia' reds under the bed nonsense is just that - utter nonsense.

Doubling down again on your fantasy 1969 invasion makes for a laugh, if it hadn't been done to death so many times.

You may not like the label of "anti-EU" or "pro-Russia" but that is what your policies are.

There you go again manipulating the debate to have me saying something I never said and then criticising me for it.

STILL WAITING for you to find an anti-EU or pro-Russia word I have typed here.

Russia is in the UN mark.

We can sum up Francies logic here.

1) We should keep the Triple Lock which gives a Veto over the deployment of our armed forces to old Imperialist powers of Russia, UK, France and China...

2) We should have invaded the North as a 'peacekeeping' mission, and ignored the Triple Lock at this time, as we claim it in our Constitution at the time.

3) Getting rid of the Triple Lock means that some government in the future could invade a random African country on a whim which may usher in a new age of Irish Imperialism

4) NATO is equally to blame for the invasion of Russia to Ukraine

It is like arguing against 4 different people such is the utter confused state of Francies mind.