EU leaders to urge closer links with Nato

BetterLisbon wrote: »

It brings us closer to NATO policies and is as such another compromise on neutrality.

What policies?

regards,
Scofflaw

Somewhat off-topic (although relating to my own thread) the Russian-Georgia war finally dismantled the hitherto untouched Golden Arches theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Arches_Theory_of_Conflict_Prevention

As Georgia does indeed have McDonalds outlets.

digme wrote: »

More wars,which I want nothing to do with.

More wars?

You do realise that we haven't been involved in any wars as a result of Crisis Management?

digme wrote: »

More wars,which I want nothing to do with.

And which have nothing to do with crisis management, any more than going to a NATO wine and cheese would involve you in a war.

cordially,
Scofflaw

caseyann wrote: »

If it took us out of neutrality and started this crap of trying to draft our kids into their stupid ass conflicts.It would be over my dead body they would get any of my kids in army.

In fairness, Ireland has never really been neutral;

During WWII, Ireland's 'neutrality' was mainly a statement to avoid civil war. Irishmen joined the British army, Irish intelligence was sent to the Allies, Allies had use of Irish airspace, Allied troops were sent to Northern Ireland to be returned home whereas Axis troops were imprisoned in the Curragh.
Ireland opted out of NATO but MacBride sought to arrange a similar bilateral arrangement with the US but the US refused.
Even today, Irish citizens are freely able to serve in the British armed services.
During the Cold War, it was clearly obvious which side Ireland was on.

Ireland's neutrality has always been heavily biased.

ANarcho-Munk wrote: »

Very true. But I think Ailtiri na hAiseirghe deserve to get a mention too, if for just being an interesting footnote in history more than anything else. They were an openly anti-semite and fascist party who organised in Ireland during WWII and managed to secure 20 odd council seats at the local elections.

There's a little info more here: http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/books-architects-resurrection-ailtiri-na-haiseirghe-and-fascist-new-order-ireland-r-m-dougl-1

It goes some of the way in dispelling the myth that the larger Irish populace were progressive angels during WWII.

Given our contribution to the Spanish Civil War consisted of 320 Irish members of the International Brigade as against 750 Irish Greenshirts supporting the Fascist forces, I think that's always been pretty clear.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ANarcho-Munk wrote: »

I think it has a tendency to write itself out of standard Irish history books though. And kickoutthejams didn't mention any of the facism that was evidently present in irish society in his post, I was concerned with pointing it out to the casual poster in the politics forum who doesn't have an in-depth understanding of irish history. Anyway, this is getting a bit off-topic.

Mainly because I don't feel it is necessary to point out that fascism existed in pretty much every European country at the time. It also had communist groups but again, I didn't feel the need to mention small factions in Irish society, given that anyone with a casual knowledge of WWII, would know that communist and fascist groups existed across Europe.

I was referring to the Irish government actions. Which constitute state practice in relation to neutrality.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The bit you forget is that we cannot adopt policies that are not in the eu's interest. Thus even if the union does not act we do not have complete freedom.

As my previous example showed, it was perfectly possible for member states, during the run up to and the actual invasion of Iraq, to adopt policies and act with complete freedom even though the union had not adopted a common position on it.

Don't let reality intrude on your theories though...

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Again the single european act required us to consider the interests of the community/union as a whole when formulating foreign policy which restricts our foreign policy i.e. not fully independent.
Each subsequent treaty has retained that requirement and developed it further with the latest treaty requiring us to assist in some shape or form if another EU state is attacked or in the event of a "terrorist" attack.

All of which is irreconcilable with political neutrality. Reconcilable with "military neutrality" as we still control our army but again NATO members control their armies too.

We've never had a fully independent foreign policy - not even the US has that. Military neutrality is what we've always had - being "neutral" is, after all, a position relative to the belligerents in a war.

However, our military neutrality consists of more than "control of our army" (which we don't actually fully have, since it's subject to the UN) - it consists of there being no requirement for us to become involved in a conflict through the operation of treaties or pacts. NATO members cannot opt out of a defensive conflict if one of the other members is attacked.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

When i say we cant impede or inhibit i mean we cant work against them either physically or diplomatically.

As has been pointed out we can work against them diplomatically, and working against them physically would indeed often constitute an act of war.

regards,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Since the single european act we have had to take the interests of the community/union as a whole into account when formulating foreign policy (the reason crotty won his case btw.) as such we do not have a fully independent policy.

The obligation on the member states in the treaties is that - where ALL the member states unanimously agree on a common policy - they will support it. There is no obligation on them to actually agree such a common policy though as can be seen in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan.

As such, your argument reduces to some hypothetical scenario where Ireland would agree to adopting a common EU policy that it actually is opposed to - a rather bizarre scenario.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Using your example against you, it is pertinent to note that we never condemned the other EU members for their actions in Iraq/Afghanistan nor did we do anything to impede or inhibit their actions.

There was no common EU policy on either of these. As such, your example doesn't work - this was an example of the government pursuing that independent foreign policy you espouse.

caseyann wrote: »

Can you show me such links thanks? My grand father expressed to me the latter and were given free run of the county and socialized with the Irish.

Viscount Cranborne, the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, wrote a letter to the British War Cabinet regarding Irish-British collaboration during 1939-1945:
“

1. They agreed to our use of Lough Foyle for naval and air purposes. The ownership of the Lough is disputed, but the Southern Irish authorities are tacitly not pressing their claim in present conditions and are also ignoring any flying by our aircraft over the Donegal shore of the Lough, which is necessary in certain wind conditions to enable flying boats to take off the Lough.
2. They have agreed to use by our aircraft based on Lough Erne of a corridor over Southern Irish territory and territorial waters for the purpose of flying out to the Atlantic.
3. They have arranged for the immediate transmission to the United Kingdom Representative’s Office in Dublin of reports of submarine activity received from their coast watching service.
4. They arranged for the broadening of reports by their Air observation Corps of aircraft sighted over or approaching Southern Irish territory. (This does not include our aircraft using the corridor referred to in (b) above.)
5. They arranged for the extinction of trade and business lighting in coastal towns where such lighting was alleged to afford a useful landmark for German aircraft.
6. They have continued to supply us with meteorological reports.
7. They have agreed to the use by our ships and aircraft of two wireless direction-finding stations at Malin Head.
8. They have supplied particulars of German crashed aircraft and personnel crashed or washed ashore or arrested on land.
9. They arranged for staff talks on the question of co-operation against a possible German invasion of Southern Ireland, and close contact has since been maintained between the respective military authorities.
10. They continue to intern all German fighting personnel reaching Southern Ireland. On the other hand, though after protracted negotiations, Allied service personnel are now allowed to depart freely and full assistance is given in recovering damaged aircraft.
11. Recently, in connection with the establishment of prisoner of war camps in Northern Ireland, they have agreed to return or at least intern any German prisoners who may escape from Northern Ireland across the border to Southern Ireland.
12. They have throughout offered no objection to the departure from Southern Ireland of persons wishing to serve in the United Kingdom Forces nor to the journey on leave of such persons to and from Southern Ireland (in plain clothes).
13. They have continued to exchange information with our security authorities regarding all aliens (including Germans) in Southern Ireland.
14. They have (within the last few days) agreed to our establishing a Radar station in Southern Ireland for use against the latest form of submarine activity.

Source: Fanning, R., 1983, Independent Ireland, Dublin: Helicon, Ltd.., pp 124-5

cordially,
Scofflaw

caseyann wrote: »

Can you show me such links thanks? My grand father expressed to me the latter and were given free run of the county and socialized with the Irish.

Scofflaw has already done so but I'll try and avoid citing internet links (some questionable content on the net)
I'll try and dig out some of my books on The Emergency tomorrow, will give you the citations needed.

They were certainly not given free run of the country. Lenient sentencing sure, but prisoners nonetheless.
When discussing anecdotal accounts of turbulent times, the views of the source need to be taken into account. For example, you'd have had widely different accounts of the war if you were asking those on my maternal side (who were hardcore republicans and had fought in the War of Independance) or those of my paternal side (who fought on the American side in the Battle of the Bulge/served in the Irish defence forces)

caseyann wrote: »

Conditions continued to improve in K-lines and in January 1941, it was authorised for parole to be extended to three hours a day for exercise and four hours each evening for recreation. The parole area consisted of the Curragh, and the three neighboring towns of Kildare, Newbridge and Killcullen. The British senior officers were allowed to telephone their diplomatic representative at any time. The ban on frequenting hotels in the local towns was lifted. Internees who were married were given extended parole from 1030 hrs to 2230 hrs to spend with their wives who traveled over to visit them. German internees took English lessons from local teachers every afternoon. Oberleutnant Kurt Mollenhauer incessantly fought with the Irish authorities for further concessions for his men. In May 1941, it was decided to extend parole to the neighboring town of Naas and internees were permitted to engage in horse riding. The restriction on visiting private homes was lifted and internees were permitted to attend local dances and functions. Tickets were obtained for the German and British officers to attend the Irish Derby at the Curragh racecourse that month.


I hereby promise to be back in the compound at o'clock and, during my absence, not to take part in any activity connected with the war or prejudicial to the interests of the Irish state".

http://www.curragh.info/klines.htm

The conditions for POWs in Ireland was fairly lenient (given that they posed little threat. However, it doesn't mean they were not prisoners of war, in the same way that a minimum security prisoner is still a prisoner.

caseyann wrote: »

From The Curragh
History - Information - Contacts

Given the lack of citations and that it's a .info website, I'm none too sure about the veracity of the site. Even so, none of what it says disproves Irish biased neutrality; merely that when Allied and Axis troops were interned, they were treated almost equally (although Allied troops could call their embassy whenever they wanted whereas Axis troops had to wait to their legate to make a routine visit)

caseyann wrote: »

Thanks i am Tired so will come back tomorrow,but on ground fact from people who were there and saw the truth and interacted with Germans and allied,My grand father was in army then and met them and interacted with them.

While I'm sure your grandfather was a great man, he cannot be used as a definitive source on The Emergency. Ireland had to keep it's work with the Allies secret during the war, for obvious reasons so it is only recently that archival material has been release. I'll expand on this below.
But basically, relying on anecdotal evidence to make sweeping statements about foreign policy is never a good idea.

caseyann wrote: »

Irish were neutral.

Officially yes, in practice, no.

caseyann wrote: »

Allied and German soldiers were given the same rights, if you would read in the link

I read the link, it mentions that there was a British army officer given the same privileges as Axis troops. That's about it. While both troops were treated well, things were clearly biased on the side of the allies. Again, I'll expand on this below.

caseyann wrote: »

(In September 1939 the then Irish Taoiseach, Eamon de Valera, announced that his government intended to keep Ireland out of the Second World War, a declaration of Irish neutrality. Eire (Rep. of Ireland) would be closed to all belligerent ships and aircraft of the war. Between September 1940 and June 1941, the fiercest period of the Battle of Britain would be fought in the skies over the British Isles between the German “Luftwaffe” and the British “RAF” and other allied air forces.)

Yes, he announced Ireland's neutrality. However, this was a pragmatic consideration. Ireland couldn't afford to join the war and it was mainly a way of
A) Showing Ireland's independence (as Irish sovereignty had only occurred in 1937.)
Avoiding Civil War. There was too much anti British sentiment for him to overtly support the Allies, however, neither could he ignore the vast amounts of Irish troops serving with the British and the clear threat that the Axis posed.

It's also important to note that Irish territorial waters and airspace was not closed off the Allies (the 'Donegal Corridor' being the best example)

It's extremely important to know that De Valera's statements didn't correlate with what actually happened during the war. He had to appear neutral but couldn't avoid helping the Allies)

caseyann wrote: »

For the Irish government, neutrality meant not showing partiality to either side. On one hand, that meant the open announcement of military activity such as the sighting of submarines or the arrival of parachutists, and the suppression of any foreign intelligence activity. Ireland's geographical position meant that this policy (which was, in the view of most historians,[who?] applied fully and consistently) tended to benefit the Allies more than Germany simply because of geography. For example, British servicemen who crashed over the State were allowed to go free if they could claim not to have been on a combat mission, otherwise they were released "on licence" (promise to remain). Many chose to escape to Great Britain via Northern Ireland.[11] Also, Allied mechanics were allowed to retrieve crash landed Allied aircraft. There was extensive cooperation between British and Irish intelligence and the exchange of information such as detailed weather reports of the Atlantic Ocean; the decision to go ahead with the D-day landings was decided by a weather report from Blacksod Bay, County Mayo.[12]
On the other hand, the government did not show any overt preference for either side, unlike the United States when it was neutral. This is partly because de Valera had to keep national unity, which meant accommodating the large swathe of Irish society that rejected anything to do with the British, some of whom admired Germany (which had failed in an attempt to supply a small cache of arms to the rebels of 1916) to some extent. These attitudes were shared by Aiken,[13] and Walshe,[14] and to a large extent by de Valera himself. The Fianna Fáil government ruled alone and did not accommodate any other party in decision-making, unlike the British National Government.[15]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(Ireland)

Wikipedia is a really, really dodgy source to rely on (as anyone can edit it). Especially the above paragraphs which are extremely poorly referenced.

Here's some info;
The release of new archival material shows the extent that Irish neutrality was biased towards the allies. Mainly that there were regular liaisons between Irish and Allied military authorities, joint preparations and plans to defend Ireland, intimate cooperation and sharing of information between G2 (Irish intelligence agency) and Allied Intelligence services, exchanging of meteorological reports, Irish forwarding of info concerning the movement of Axis planes ships and submarines, the Donegal Corridor.
Furthermore Irish policy towards captured German and Allied Servicemen was 'far from even-handed'. Out of all the servicemen who crashed or made emergency landings during the entire war, only one Axis soldier was repatriated (and even then, in late 1943 (the rest were interned in the Curragh for the war, where they were well treated). 90% of Allied servicemen were repatriated. Yes, 10% were interned but clearly the Irish government favored the Allies. The difference being that the Allied aircraft were distinguished between 'belligerent' and 'non-belligerent' (with only belligerent troops being interned) whereas all German planes were treated as belligerent, no matter what their purpose was.
You are correct that when held together, they were treated equally but that only applies to those Allies who were interned whereas the vast majority were not and were sent to Northern Ireland to be sent home. Furthermore the Irish were the only neutral nation in the entire war who were interning airmen. The Germans were outraged and the German legate in Ireland, Herr Hempel, made frequent complaints to Boland and De Valera about Irish bias.

Furthermore, most crashed Allied planes were returned to the Allies, but not for the Germans and the Allies even sent gifts of oil to Ireland in thanks, as well as the agreement between Ireland and the UK which allowed Irishmen to serve in the UK armed forces and civilian war effort with the Irish government even introducing a visa system to expedite the efforts.
The above is from from Twentieth Century Ireland by Dermot Keogh (Dublin 1994) pp.120-128.

Furthermore, even De Valera admitted the Irish neutrality was at best, biased (' a friendly neutral') with a series of secret agreements with the Allies; defense agreements with the Americans in the event of a German attack on Ireland. It was widely reported during the war that Ireland's neutrality was 'heavily tilted towards the Allied side'. Gray also underlines the distinctions made for Allied planes (belligerent/non belligerent) and the result that only 10% of Allied servicemen were interned. Hell, the Irish government even sent fire brigades to help with the Blitz in Northern Ireland, with De Valera fully knowing that sending of fire-brigades to aid a belligerent country was a serious breach of neutrality regulations.
The Lost Years; The Emergency in Ireland, 1939-1945 by Tony Gray, Stirlingshire, 1997) pp. 3-16

caseyann wrote: »

Not prisoners of war detained so not to be consorting or planning attacks on Irish soil.

Yes, they were prisoners of war. During a war, if you are a combatant on enemy or neutral soil, then you are a prisoner of war, even if you are not planning attacks on the neutral country.