Irish Neutrality - A Joke? (EU Treaty)

johnnyq

Ireland has always claimed to be a neutral country.

However, lest we forget our government's definition of neutrality allows thousands of US troops pass through Shannon on their way to the UN illegal invasion of Iraq.

So whether Ireland can even carry on the charade of being a neutral country is up for debate.

I think that the EU treaty will destoy any remblance of Irish neutrality left.

The only saving grace we *appear* to have is that we need another referendum to allow Irish troops go on these non-UN sanctioned EU "missions".
This is up for discussion especially with the inclusion of loopholes like Article 308.

The treaty (Article 188R) brings in an EU Solidarity Clause which reads:

Article 188 wrote:

The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States, to:
— prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States;
— protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist attack;

Ireland is not exempt from this provision (unlike Denmark I might add).
In all fairness how can a neutral country be part of a military solidarity clause?!?

Ireland might not give it's troops but it says nothing about Ireland's military resources. Do you see the Irish government standing up to the rest of Europe on this matter when we allow the US to use our airports?

By voting Yes to Lisbon we also agree to step up our military capabilities (but we're neutral don't forget :rolleyes:) Ireland is not exempt from this.

Article 28 wrote:

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.

So what will we do with our improved capabilities? Article 28B might provide a clue...

Article 28B wrote:

All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.

No mention of UN approval....interesting....
Lest we forget this can include preventative actions too.... devastation in Iraq ring any bells?

Some might claim that this treaty does not form a standing EU army.
Sure NATO isn't a standing army either and look at its capabilities...

These mutual defence obligations are so significant that a report adopted by the European Parliament reccommended that that Nato-linked Western European Union be wound-up since it's "collective self-defence" provisions have been incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty.

If the Peace and Neutrality Alliance views that by voting YES this militarision of Europe will affect Irish Neutrality, who do we believe? Surely not our politicians who view US troops in Shannon as maintaining the neutral Irish state.

speedboatchase

We're not neutral, we know which side our bread is buttered on. In fairness, our neutrality has made us look like numptys on quite a few occasions. I still can't believe Dev sent his condolences to the Germans after Hitler died. As for the EU missions, we should've been oppossed to them from the very start or not at all, not just when our troops could be deployed to a dangerous region

johnnyq

speedboatchase wrote: »

We're not neutral, we know which side our bread is buttered on. In fairness, our neutrality has made us look like numptys on quite a few occasions. I still can't believe Dev sent his condolences to the Germans after Hitler died.

So can I take it you do not favour Irish neutrality?

As for the EU missions, we should've been oppossed to them from the very start or not at all, not just when our troops could be deployed to a dangerous region

But Ireland has never been involved with EU missions without UN approval. The Irish troops going to chad have UN approval. Do you want Ireland to do otherwise?

speedboatchase

I don't think a country can be out and out neutral for every single case. If a dictatorship begins to invade a democratic society for example, a government that supports neutrality in that issue is weak in my opinion. Neutrality should be judged on the circumstances, rather than being an all-encompassing policy of a government.

I'm fairly ignorant on the issue of EU missions to be perfectly honest, but I've never seen them as being as vital as disaster relief for example. However a lot of Irish opinion (who are probably better-informed than me on the subject) on the missions completely changed once the issue of Chad came up, which is completely hypocritical.

johnnyq

speedboatchase wrote: »

I don't think a country can be out and out neutral for every single case. If a dictatorship begins to invade a democratic society for example, a government that supports neutrality in that issue is weak in my opinion. Neutrality should be judged on the circumstances, rather than being an all-encompassing policy of a government.

So a part-time neutral country :pac:

Take WW2, are you suggesting that Ireland should have fought in it and have German planes bombing Irish cities? Are you at all familiar with the devastation that war causes? One accidental German bomb hit Dublin (ment for Belfast) look at the hurt that caused. Too many Irish people were killed in that war anyway fighting for the UK forces. Did we really want more deaths?

In extreme cases we can look towards the UN.

speedboatchase

Part time neutral country? Read my post and don't be a smartarse, give this :pac: crap a rest.

Yes, I feel every country that found the Nazi regime repugnant should have taken arms and fought with the allies. You seem to be a pacifist that holds moral equivalence in any war, no matter the circumstances (unless the U.S is involved, natch). Thank goodness there was Irish men that did their part to the stand up to Hitler and Mussolini. "Did we really want more deaths?" Whatever it takes that would've stopped of us from speaking German on this forum, and I'm immensely proud of the contribution of those brave souls, and so should you be. Your attitude that "oh god, Irish cities would've been bombed, let's cower till its all over and hope the Allies win it for us" is pathetic, whether you realise it or not.

Scofflaw

We're not neutral by anyone's definition but our own (which, in turn, we are careful not to define). The definition of a neutral state includes the requirement for the state to maintain sufficient military force to prevent uncontested invasion - the idea being that if state A wants to attack state B, and decides to take over neutral territory to do so, it cannot do so without a proper fight. Sweden, Austria, and Finland, the other EU neutrals, all maintain strong military forces for this reason.

We, on the other hand, don't. We are simply formally non-aligned, by policy (there's no reference to neutrality in Bunreacht).

The treaty (Article 188R) brings in an EU Solidarity Clause which reads

The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States, to:
— prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States;
— protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist attack;

You should quote the whole thing, because this bit:

The arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the solidarity clause shall be defined by a decision adopted by the Council acting on a joint proposal by the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Council shall act in accordance with Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union where this decision has defence implications. The European Parliament shall be informed.

is important. Article 17.1 is this:

Decisions under this Chapter shall be taken by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where this Chapter provides otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded.
When abstaining in a vote, any member of the Council may qualify its abstention by making a formal declaration under the present subparagraph. In that case, it shall not be obliged to apply the decision, but shall accept that the decision commits the Union. In a spirit of mutual solidarity, the Member State concerned shall refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision and the other Member States shall respect its position. If the members of the Council qualifying their abstention in this way represent at least one third of the Member States comprising at least one third of the population of the Union, the decision shall
not be adopted.

Any decision taken under the Solidarity clause can only be taken by unanimity if it involves military force ("defence implications") - which is to say that there is an Irish veto. There's also an Irish cop-out, which is where we abstain, but allow the rest of the EU to go ahead.

All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.

Yes, there's no mention of UN mandates - but what has that got to do with Ireland, who can only commit forces if there is a UN mandate?

johnnyq wrote:

If the Peace and Neutrality Alliance views that by voting YES this militarision of Europe will affect Irish Neutrality, who do we believe? Surely not our politicians who view US troops in Shannon as maintaining the neutral Irish state.

You'll excuse me if I don't trust people who quote bits and pieces of text without including all the relevant provisions, and go on to make a song and dance about what it might mean if these provisions were taken completely out of context.

Our politicians may not be maintaining "proper" neutrality, but that's not something we've ever had to maintain. Even in WW2, we allowed downed Allied airmen to leave, while interning German airmen - we also covered for the 70,000+ Irish who chose to serve with the Allied forces.

There is a discussion to be had about whether the EU should have military 'muscle', but this is not it. If PANA have a case to make, let them make it honestly - not by way of the pretence that Ireland will be sucked into an EU army. Libertas have already fallen at that hurdle.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SeanW

Right well, first of all, our "neutrality" has only ever been a theoretical aspiration.

During World War II, we helped the Allies in practice while claiming "Neutrality" officially. Since we didn't have any serious military capability so we depended on the British Crown forces and the Americans to keep the SS out of Ireland. That and the fact that the Nazis had bigger fish to fry. This isn't neutrality.

Meanwhile if you look at Switzerland, it stayed independent - and neutral - during WWII while countries all around fell like dominos before the Nazi forces, Austria, Poland, France, parts of Scandinavia, bordered to the North by Germany and to the South by Mussolini's Italy.

Because it had a serious army, and a National Draft, and a very strong national identity. All young Swiss men were - and may still be - required to keep a pistol for military service. The Nazis could have invaded Switzerland but they would have had considerable difficulty taking it, had they decided to do so.

That's neutrality - a strict(er) non-interventionist stance, coupled with a fierce military deterrrent. Ireland has neither.

Manic Moran

Irish neutrality has always been a joke, at least you accept that it's a charade.

Take WW2, are you suggesting that Ireland should have fought in it and have German planes bombing Irish cities? Are you at all familiar with the devastation that war causes? One accidental German bomb hit Dublin (ment for Belfast) look at the hurt that caused. Too many Irish people were killed in that war anyway fighting for the UK forces. Did we really want more deaths?

Well, there's a responsible attitude.
A ruthless and genocidal regime is taking over half of Europe, but we don't want to get involved because it might negatively affect us. Like having a ruthless regime running half of Europe doesn't negatively affect you anyway.

And it should be pointed out that declaring neutrality didn't seem to help Belgium, Holland or Norway very much, did it? If you're going to be neutral, you need to be able to back it up. To think "We're neutral, it won't affect us" is very much a heads-in-the-sand attitude.

The other neutral countries in Europe; Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Austria now have capable, well-equipped militaries. It seems the lessons have been learned by them.

Countries that don't want to go to the trouble or expense of maintaining capable armies, such as Luxembourg or Iceland at least formally admit that they are incapable of defending themselves, so joined NATO instead of relying on the sham of 'We won't help anyone else out, but we think everyone else will help us if we need it'

Surely not our politicians who view US troops in Shannon as maintaining the neutral Irish state.

Neutrality is, I believe, indicated by refusing to grant aid or assitance to any one entity or group, whilst granting it to another. Military aircraft from many countries land in Ireland every year, when was the last time that Ireland ever said 'no' to a particular side or organisation? When has Ireland ever refused permission to land in Ireland or fly over the country because the requestor was against the US? All you need do is look back to the days when Soviet military aircraft and US military aircraft shared ramp space at Shannon.
Was Uragauy in violation of its neutrality when it provided a place for KMS Graf Spee to repair and refit after the Battle of the River Plate, knowing full well that upon completion, the warship would leave port to face the waiting British fleet? Of course not.

All young Swiss men were - and may still be - required to keep a pistol for military service. The Nazis could have invaded Switzerland but they would have had considerable difficulty taking it, had they decided to do so

Assault rifle, actually.

There's a story that somewhere before WWI a German general was talking to a Swiss counterpart, and asked "We have a two-million man army, you have a one million man army. What would you do if we were to invade you?" The Swiss replied "Shoot twice, and go home"

NTM

johnnyq

speedboatchase wrote: »

Yes, I feel every country that found the Nazi regime repugnant should have taken arms and fought with the allies. You seem to be a pacifist that holds moral equivalence in any war, no matter the circumstances (unless the U.S is involved, natch). Thank goodness there was Irish men that did their part to the stand up to Hitler and Mussolini. "Did we really want more deaths?" Whatever it takes that would've stopped of us from speaking German on this forum, and I'm immensely proud of the contribution of those brave souls, and so should you be. Your attitude that "oh god, Irish cities would've been bombed, let's cower till its all over and hope the Allies win it for us" is pathetic, whether you realise it or not.

I hold your contempt for human life to be more pathetic tbh.
"Whatever it takes"... are you for real?!?

As you may gather, I view very few wars as 'just' yet they are a realistic part of life. Luckily we now have the UN where a consensus agreement can provide a sliver of justification to certain wars. I don't think that Irish forces, resources, or co-operation should be given to any form of warfare without at least UN santion.

johnnyq

Scofflaw wrote: »

We're not neutral by anyone's definition but our own (which, in turn, we are careful not to define). The definition of a neutral state includes the requirement for the state to maintain sufficient military force to prevent uncontested invasion -

I can't find this military requirement in any defination. Source?

Scofflaw wrote:

Any decision taken under the Solidarity clause can only be taken by unanimity if it involves military force ("defence implications") - which is to say that there is an Irish veto. There's also an Irish cop-out, which is where we abstain, but allow the rest of the EU to go ahead.

The classic cop-out! Again, I repeat if the government allows US planes on illegal wars to use Shannon, do you see the same government standing up to larger EU nations?

Scofflaw wrote:

Yes, there's no mention of UN mandates - but what has that got to do with Ireland, who can only commit forces if there is a UN mandate?

You forget it says nothing about resources, airspace, use of ports etc...
I don't think that the resources of a *neutral* country should be used in warfare not sanctioned by the UN.

Scofflaw wrote:

You'll excuse me if I don't trust people who quote bits and pieces of text without including all the relevant provisions, and go on to make a song and dance about what it might mean if these provisions were taken completely out of context.

I fail to see how the above quotes are out of context. It's hard to take a solidarity clause out of context. The spinelessness of our government easily removes the necessity to quote voting provisions.

Our politicians may not be maintaining "proper" neutrality, but that's not something we've ever had to maintain. Even in WW2, we allowed downed Allied airmen to leave, while interning German airmen - we also covered for the 70,000+ Irish who chose to serve with the Allied forces.

If Ireland is to be internationally recognised as a neutral country then there are standards to be maintained, I don't think that voting for this treaty is going to help maintain them.

Scofflaw wrote:

There is a discussion to be had about whether the EU should have military 'muscle', but this is not it. If PANA have a case to make, let them make it honestly - not by way of the pretence that Ireland will be sucked into an EU army. Libertas have already fallen at that hurdle.

I never said that Ireland will necessarily be sucked into an EU army, I was making references to use of Irish resouces - if we wish to maintain the guise of being a neutral country.

johnnyq

ManicMoran wrote:

Neutrality is, I believe, indicated by refusing to grant aid or assitance to any one entity or group, whilst granting it to another. Military aircraft from many countries land in Ireland every year, when was the last time that Ireland ever said 'no' to a particular side or organisation? When has Ireland ever refused permission to land in Ireland or fly over the country because the requestor was against the US? All you need do is look back to the days when Soviet military aircraft and US military aircraft shared ramp space at Shannon.
Was Uragauy in violation of its neutrality when it provided a place for KMS Graf Spee to repair and refit after the Battle of the River Plate, knowing full well that upon completion, the warship would leave port to face the waiting British fleet? Of course not.

Facilitation surely cannot be defined as neutrality, as you seem to be suggesting.

People who say that the treaty does not affect 'neutrality' when Ireland is facilitating the EU on non-UN missions is one thing. i.e. no irish troops = neutrality or allowing the EU to go on these missions i.e. abstaining = neutrality.

However, there are provisions allowing the Irish government to provide resources i.e. airspace, ports, tanks, money etc... for non-UN missions. This could never be interpreted as neutrality, even under our standards.

Manic Moran

I can't find this military requirement in any defination. Source?

It's out there somewhere. It was the reason given for the rapid purchase of the MTBs at the start of The Emergency, in effect that if Ireland was unable to enforce its own neutrality (even in principle), belligerent nations would be authorised to enter Irish waters to ensure that no other belligerent was using them. (As stated in the book "The Irish Naval Service: A Story of Courage and Tenacity")

From the Irish Naval Service website:

The entire process of raising some type of Navy was greatly accelerated by the outbreak of World War II as Ireland needed to have its own Navy to uphold its neutrality

Offhand, quoting from:
"Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict Challenges Ahead" by Frits Kalshoven:
It says that there are three duties which apply to neutrals. Duty of abstention, prevention, and impartiality. The first and last need no military capability. Quoting from the paragraph on 'prevention'

"Neutrals may not tolerate on their territory acts of belligerents which are prohibited by the law of neutrality (cf Articles 5 and 10 of Hague Convention V and Articles 8 and 28 of Hague Convention XIII

In order to not tolerate something, you have to be in a position to do something about it.

Facilitation surely cannot be defined as neutrality, as you seem to be suggesting.

It's "moran" actually.

Facilitation -can- be compatible with neutrality as long as the country does not do so in an impartial manner.

Hague XIII Art 7: (Bold mine)

A neutral Power is not bound to prevent the export or transit, for the use of either belligerent, of arms, ammunition, or, in general, of anything which could be of use to an army or fleet.

Now, if Ireland had said "Yes, American troops can refuel at Shannon, Romanian airplanes can use Casemont, but we won't let Ukrainian airplanes land anywhere", that would be a violation of the duty of impartiality.

NTM

johnnyq

Manic Moran wrote: »

In order to not tolerate something, you have to be in a position to do something about it.

Which is why Ireland does have a standing army, naval and air corps
Unlike Iceland and Luxembourg which admit they are defenceless.

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote: »

We're not neutral by anyone's definition but our own (which, in turn, we are careful not to define). The definition of a neutral state includes the requirement for the state to maintain sufficient military force to prevent uncontested invasion -

I can't find this military requirement in any defination. Source?

General acceptance (more specifically, the power to actually do what neutral states are supposed to do, according to the second Hague convention).

johnnyq wrote: »

The classic cop-out! Again, I repeat if the government allows US planes on illegal wars to use Shannon, do you see the same government standing up to larger EU nations?

The classic innuendo! Yes, I do. Quoting from the unmentionable source:

Ireland has a long history of allowing military aircraft of various nations to refuel at Shannon Airport. Under the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, exceptionally, could grant permission to foreign military aircraft to overfly or land in the State. Confirmation was required that the aircraft in question be unarmed, carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and that the flights in question would not form part of military exercises or operations.

In September 2001 these conditions were "waived in respect of aircraft operating in pursuit of the implementation of the Security Council Resolution 1368".

So, quite exceptionally, a waiver has been granted on foot of a UN resolution. A relevant Dáil debate is here.

johnnyq wrote: »

You forget it says nothing about resources, airspace, use of ports etc...I don't think that the resources of a *neutral* country should be used in warfare not sanctioned by the UN.

Actually, it seems the way we go about it is rather different - we let everybody use it:

The numbers of foreign military aircraft granted landing permission under the terms of the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952, from 1990 to end November 2002 are as follows: 1990, 447; 1991, 271; 1992, 303; 1993, 375; 1994, 333; 1995, 342; 1996, 387; 1997, 434; 1998, 437; 1999, 511; 2000, 456; 2001, 489; and 2002 up to the end of November, 523.

The countries to which this permission was granted are as follows: Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, China, Croatia, Czechoslovakia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Republic of Guinea, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, USA, and the Republic of Yugoslavia.

johnnyq wrote: »

I fail to see how the above quotes are out of context. It's hard to take a solidarity clause out of context. The spinelessness of our government easily removes the necessity to quote voting provisions.

Oh, rubbish. Honestly, if you're going to take that tack, there's no point even arguing about the treaty - it clearly wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.

I suggest that in future if you feel there's no "necessity to quote voting provisions" which govern treaty clauses you bring up to support your speculations, that you resist those feelings and make an honest quote of it.

johnnyq wrote: »

If Ireland is to be internationally recognised as a neutral country then there are standards to be maintained, I don't think that voting for this treaty is going to help maintain them.

Ireland is internationally recognised as a neutral country. Already. And the Treaty doesn't change that.

You either don't know that Ireland is recognised as a neutral, or you do. In the former case, you evidently don't really enough to make a case - in the latter...the inference is obvious.

johnnyq wrote: »

I never said that Ireland will necessarily be sucked into an EU army, I was making references to use of Irish resouces - if we wish to maintain the guise of being a neutral country.

No, you were hemming and hawing and speculating about an EU army, and the "use" to which "we" might put our "increased military resources". Don't try to get out of it by pretending that's not what you were implying - if it had no relevance to Irish neutrality, why did you mention it?

Johnny, if you're arguing on behalf of PANA or any other organisation, you're doing them a grave disservice. At least, I hope you are.

regards,
Scofflaw

johnnyq

Scofflaw wrote: »

General acceptance (more specifically, the power to actually do what neutral states are supposed to do, according to the second Hague convention).

"General acceptance" is not defined. Hence this is not relevant.

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually, it seems the way we go about it is rather different - we let everybody use it:

The numbers of foreign military aircraft granted landing permission under the terms of the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952, from 1990 to end November 2002 are as follows: 1990, 447; 1991, 271; 1992, 303; 1993, 375; 1994, 333; 1995, 342; 1996, 387; 1997, 434; 1998, 437; 1999, 511; 2000, 456; 2001, 489; and 2002 up to the end of November, 523.

The countries to which this permission was granted are as follows: Algeria, Argentina,....

Yes, but how many of these planes were actually to be immently engaged in illegal warfare?

Scofflaw wrote:

Oh, rubbish. Honestly, if you're going to take that tack, there's no point even arguing about the treaty - it clearly wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.

I suggest that in future if you feel there's no "necessity to quote voting provisions" which govern treaty clauses you bring up to support your speculations, that you resist those feelings and make an honest quote of it.

I was specifically quoting what the implecations were and I even didn't bother listing all of them. You seem to claim that by not quoting the whole piece it somehow invalidates what is actually written in the treaty.

Scofflaw wrote:

Ireland is internationally recognised as a neutral country. Already. And the Treaty doesn't change that.

the treaty includes provisions which potentially make this no longer the case.

Scofflaw wrote:

No, you were hemming and hawing and speculating about an EU army, and the "use" to which "we" might put our "increased military resources". Don't try to get out of it by pretending that's not what you were implying - if it had no relevance to Irish neutrality, why did you mention it?

You seem to think that soldiers are the only military resources that exist. How many times in this thread alone have I given 'resources' it's correct broader meaning? Conveniently you forget the context I placed that in. Sounds familiar?

Scofflaw wrote:

Johnny, if you're arguing on behalf of PANA, you're doing them a grave disservice.

So we're all clear - no i am not.

johnnyq

scofflaw wrote:

You either don't know that Ireland is recognised as a neutral, or you do. In the former case, you evidently don't really enough to make a case - in the latter...the inference is obvious.

You added this in your first edit I think?

It really makes no sense.

Care to re-edit it again

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

"General acceptance" is not defined. Hence this is not relevant.

According to...?

johnnyq wrote: »

Yes, but how many of these planes were actually to be immently engaged in illegal warfare?

I have no idea - how many of the US planes fall into that definition? And whose definition?

johnnyq wrote: »

I was specifically quoting what the implecations were and I even didn't bother listing all of them. You seem to claim that by not quoting the whole piece it somehow invalidates what is actually written in the treaty.

No - I am pointing out that it invalidates your speculations, because those speculations are based on ignoring the unanimous voting requirements.

johnnyq wrote: »

Ireland is internationally recognised as a neutral country. Already. And the Treaty doesn't change that.

the treaty includes provisions which potentially make this no longer the case.

The Treaty contains exactly the same provisions to safeguard neutrality as previous treaties.

johnnyq wrote: »

You seem to think that soldiers are the only military resources that exist. How many times in this thread alone have I given 'resources' it's correct broader meaning? Conveniently you forget the context I placed that in. Sounds familiar?

Does it involve you trying to make this about me rather than the Treaty? Why, yes it does - which is why it sounds familiar.

You would prefer, I think, to define the terms you want to use the way you want to define them - and there's no arguing with Humpty-Dumpty.

johnnyq wrote: »

So we're all clear - no i am not.

Lucky for them. Crikey, but what a waste of time...you have an angle, and you like your angle, and you repeat your angle, and you never change your angle - and if someone disagrees, you're pretty nasty. It's like debating with an angle-grinder.

All the usual safeguards for our neutrality (such as it is, such as we have made it) are in the usual places in this treaty, as they have been in every other. We have our own safeguards in our Constitution. And this trying to smear everything with FUD that you're doing has been done at every single EU referendum. It ain't honest.

Scofflaw

johnnyq

Scofflaw wrote: »

According to...?

C'mon Scofflaw - i'm not being nasty here I just want facts:

You said that "We're not neutral by anyone's definition but our own.... The definition of a neutral state includes the requirement for the state to maintain sufficient military force..."

I asked for a source of this definition and you stated "general acceptance". WTF? I doubt you would be satisifed with such a fob-off.

You can't be so dogmatic and then not provide a source for it.

Scofflaw wrote:

I have no idea - how many of the US planes fall into that definition? And whose definition?

As you know there is a big difference between any military plane flying over Ireland and a US Bomber on its way to Iraq to kill thousands of people in an illegal war.

What I am concerned about is whether Ireland will facilitate such actions by *abstaining* from (at best) these military actions we're potentially giving permission to in the treaty.

Scofflaw wrote:

No - I am pointing out that it invalidates your speculations, because those speculations are based on ignoring the unanimous voting requirements.

But that assumes the government will use this veto. Going on past experience here, the government isn't very good at defending this area, just look at shannon.

We are being asked to endorse government decisions in this area, which going on the past, are not in the interests of maintaining Irish neutrality.

The Treaty contains exactly the same provisions to safeguard neutrality as previous treaties.

Yes but how do these weigh up against the obvious new threats to irish neutrality? New solidarity clause etc... etc...

Scofflaw wrote:

Does it involve you trying to make this about me rather than the Treaty? Why, yes it does - which is why it sounds familiar.

You would prefer, I think, to define the terms you want to use the way you want to define them - and there's no arguing with Humpty-Dumpty.

Sorry, but you accused me of being misleading (maybe you didn't? feel free to clarify). I pointed out that by refining the word 'resources' to a context I did not place it in - in order to make my opinion sound contradictory - was also misleading.

There is no need to make this personal. I was merely clarrifing any perceived inconsistencies.

Scofflaw wrote:

Lucky for them. Crikey, but what a waste of time...you have an angle, and you like your angle, and you repeat your angle, and you never change your angle - and if someone disagrees, you're pretty nasty. It's like debating with an angle-grinder.

I think that this is unjustified. I was never nasty - I didn't call you a name, slander you, in any way undermine you. Tbh, a bit like you're doing now.

In fairness, you cannot make inferences that were not intended and expect the other debater to roll-over and not clarify the situation.

Scofflaw wrote:

All the usual safeguards for our neutrality (such as it is, such as we have made it) are in the usual places in this treaty, as they have been in every other. We have our own safeguards in our Constitution. And this trying to smear everything with FUD that you're doing has been done at every single EU referendum. It ain't honest.

Are you seriously suggesting that one cannot have valid concerns about the military implications of this treaty? Will you be calling me a 'loo-laa' next?

The Irish people cannot be naive and just assume that their interests are always being looked after. This treaty needs to be analysed in detail because alternative loopholes and opinions often lead to situations which are never envisioned when voting for them.

Injustices in the world do occur. Imagine how the patriotic American senators feel now about voting for the Iraq war which was all based on a lie. Now that's dishonest.

johnnyq

Just to address some of your extra points after your edit (which I missed)

Manic Moran wrote: »

"In order to not tolerate something, you have to be in a position to do something about it."

It's "moran" actually.

Sorry , I forgot the space between Manic and Moran also.:)

Quote wrote:

Facilitation -can- be compatible with neutrality as long as the country does not do so in an impartial manner.

Hague XIII Art 7: (etc........

Now, if Ireland had said "Yes, American troops can refuel at Shannon, Romanian airplanes can use Casemont, but we won't let Ukrainian airplanes land anywhere", that would be a violation of the duty of impartiality.

Hmm... does this also apply to planes refueling on their way to an illegal war though? Doubt it.

turgon

johnnyq, the only quote i can find you started with is

"the Union shall mobilize all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States"

Note the word "available". That means a country has to offer its army for it to be take (it has to be made available)

turgon

Ok i foun another one under article 42:

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military
capabilities

Theres a debate monday in Cork City Hall, and if im there brian crowley will be questioned about this!

turgon

To be honest the wording seems very lenient, in that a neutral country will not be forced to do anything. Its still all a bit dodgy.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

johnnyq, the only quote i can find you started with is

"the Union shall mobilize all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States"

Note the word "available". That means a country has to offer its army for it to be take (it has to be made available)

No - it means that that the Union can use only what is made available to it. Like it says.

Makes me wonder - if someone said you could have any money they made available to you, do you think that would entitle you to all their money?

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Yes, Scofflaw, i was in fact agreeing with you. No need to bite.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Yes, Scofflaw, i was in fact agreeing with you. No need to bite.

I beg your pardon, then - I'm sorry if I'm a little snappy sometimes! I must have taken that up entirely wrong.

apologetically,
Scofflaw

Manic Moran

johnnyq wrote: »

Hmm... does this also apply to planes refueling on their way to an illegal war though? Doubt it.

Can't see why not.

1) If belligerents were allowed to use neutral territory for transit for their materiel on ships, I can't see why the principle cannot be applied to aircraft. Note that there's a difference between using a neutral port as a staging point for an attack, and using one as a transit point. Again, we have some fifty years of Cold War precedent to back up upon: Russian and US forces were occasionally sent around the globe to fight in varous places and stopping at Shannon on the way, but both sides were allowed to stop at the same field without causing a ruckus. (They just had to be careful to allocate ramp space at opposite ends of the terminal)

2) When the Hague conventions were written, there was no such a concept as an 'illegal war.' This is a recent concept brought about by the existance of the UN. You could argue jus ad bellum over the morality of it and your moral imperative to take sides, if any, but wars were at the time pretty much a fact of international diplomacy.

Again, I reiterate that unless Ireland has been proven to have permitted resources to one side and refused them to another, I don't see how this smacks of impartiality.

NTM

ninty9er

Why this thread is a joke

1) The Triple Lock

2)Comparable countries are

• Switzerland
  
  • where all able males between 18 and 40 are trained to military standards to defend the country in the event of agressive attacks

• Sweden
  • Where they have the largest per capita air force on the planet
  • Where they build fighter jets (apparently, it was news to me)

3) We already have military capabilities within which neutrality goes out the window in the case of hostility against the state.

4)These are the articles you refer to

The permanent structured cooperation referred to in Article 28 A(6) of the Treaty on European Union shall be open to any Member State which undertakes, from the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, to:
(a) proceed more intensively to develop its defence capacities through the development of its national contributions and
participation, where appropriate, in multinational forces, in the main European equipment programmes, and in the
activity of the Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (European
Defence Agency), and
(b) have the capacity to supply by 2010 at the latest, either at national level or as a component of multinational force
groups, targeted combat units for the missions planned, structured at a tactical level as a battle group, with support
elements including transport and logistics, capable of carrying out the tasks referred to in Article 28 B of the Treaty on
European Union, within a period of 5 to 30 days, in particular in response to requests from the United Nations
Organisation, and which can be sustained for an initial period of 30 days and be extended up to at least 120 days.

Article 2
To achieve the objectives laid down in Article 1, Member States participating in permanent structured cooperation shall
undertake to:
(a) cooperate, as from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, with a view to achieving approved objectives
concerning the level of investment expenditure on defence equipment, and regularly review these objectives, in the
light of the security environment and of the Union's international responsibilities;
C 306/154 EN Official Journal of the European Union 17.12.2007
(b) bring their defence apparatus into line with each other as far as possible, particularly by harmonising the identification
of their military needs, by pooling and, where appropriate, specialising their defence means and capabilities, and by
encouraging cooperation in the fields of training and logistics;
(c) take concrete measures to enhance the availability, interoperability, flexibility and deployability of their forces, in
particular by identifying common objectives regarding the commitment of forces, including possibly reviewing their
national decision-making procedures;
(d) work together to ensure that they take the necessary measures to make good, including through multinational
approaches, and without prejudice to undertakings in this regard within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the
shortfalls perceived in the framework of the ‘Capability Development Mechanism’;
(e) take part, where appropriate, in the development of major joint or European equipment programmes in the framework
of the European Defence Agency.

5) What the Treaty does do

• It enshrines the rights of a fundamental charter of rights
• Puts national parliaments at the centre of decision making in the European Union.
• Makes big country and small country groupings "pushing an agenda" all but impossible at the Council of Ministers. (i.e Double Majority)

  • 3. As from 1 November 2014 and subject to the provisions laid down in the Protocol
    on transitional provisions, in cases where, under the Treaties, not all the members of the
    Council participate in voting, a qualified majority shall be defined as follows:
    (a) A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council
    representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the
    population of these States.
    A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of Council
    members representing more than 35 % of the population of the participating
    Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be
    deemed attained;
    (b) By way of derogation from point (a), where the Council does not act on a proposal
    from the Commission or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign
    Affairs and Security Policy, the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72 % of
    the members of the Council representing the participating Member States,
    comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States.’.
    C 306/104 EN Official Journal of the European Union 17.12.2007
    (b) paragraph 4 shall be deleted and paragraph 3 shall be renumbered 4.

  • (1) Provisions should be adopted allowing for a smooth transition from the system for decisionmaking
    in the Council by a qualified majority as defined in Article 3(3) of the Protocol on the
    transitional provisions, which will continue to apply until 31 October 2014, to the voting system
    provided for in Article 9 C(4) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 205(2) of the Treaty
    on the Functioning of the European Union, which will apply with effect from 1 November 2014,
    including, during a transitional period until 31 March 2017, specific provisions laid down in
    Article 3(2) of that Protocol.
    (2) It is recalled that it is the practice of the Council to devote every effort to strengthening the
    democratic legitimacy of decisions taken by a qualified majority,
    C 306/250 EN Official Journal of the European Union 17.12.2007
    HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
    Section 1
    Provisions to be applied from 1 November 2014 to 31 March 2017
    Article 1
    From 1 November 2014 to 31 March 2017, if members of the Council, representing:
    (a) at least three quarters of the population, or
    (b) at least three quarters of the number of Member States
    necessary to constitute a blocking minority resulting from the application of Article 9 C(4),
    first subparagraph, of the Treaty on European Union or Article 205(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning
    of the European Union, indicate their opposition to the Council adopting an act by a qualified majority,
    the Council shall discuss the issue.
    Article 2
    The Council shall, in the course of these discussions, do all in its power to reach, within a reasonable
    time and without prejudicing obligatory time limits laid down by Union law, a satisfactory solution to
    address concerns raised by the members of the Council referred to in Article 1.
    Article 3
    To this end, the President of the Council, with the assistance of the Commission and in compliance
    with the Rules of Procedure of the Council, shall undertake any initiative necessary to facilitate a wider
    basis of agreement in the Council. The members of the Council shall lend him or her their assistance.
    Section 2
    Provisions to be applied as from 1 April 2017
    Article 4
    As from 1 April 2017, if members of the Council, representing:
    (a) at least 55 % of the population, or
    (b) at least 55 % of the number of Member States
    17.12.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 306/251
    necessary to constitute a blocking minority resulting from the application of Article 9 C(4),
    first subparagraph, of the Treaty on European Union or Article 205(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning
    of the European Union, indicate their opposition to the Council adopting an act by a qualified majority,
    the Council shall discuss the issue.

• Commission proposals will now go to national parliaments before the Council or Parliament...rather than AFTER they have passed or rejected them.

The original structures of the European Union and it's preeceding incarnations (EEC and ECSC) cannot efficiently cater for the 27 members we now have when you think that they were originally designed for 6 in 1951 in the Treaty of Paris and we currently run on a modification of that rather than a the root and branch effectiveness reform that this provides.

A copy of the treaty is available here

nhughes100

The question is, Is Irish nuetrality a joke? And of course it is. The Lisbon treaty just makes more of a mockery of this sacred cow of Irish politics. Let's face it we were nuetral in WW2 because, 1 - We were broke, 2 - Dev would never fight on the same side as the British. The very notion that Ireland is nuetral is a joke, it is nuetrality in name only.

The only reason the government stood up to the EU on US troops landing in Shannon is money in the shape of US multinationals, the only reason we are upgrading the Defence forces equipment is that we get the money from the EU for it.

I, like a lot of people couldn't give a fiddlers about nuetrality, we aren't nuetral, plain and simple. Lets get this red herring off the agenda and have a referendum on it.

I've no problem with the Defense Forces being used more in an international setting. There's approx 11,000 people in the IDF who I'm sure are bored enough with Money and prison service escorts. If I was in the army I'd love to be heading off to Chad and more places besides. Now all they have to do is upgrade the Air corps and Navy so we can stop them pesky Spainish fishermen!

nhughes100

And another thing, consider this possible scenario and tell me Nuetrality isn't a joke.

Turkey(a non EU country and long may it last) attacks Greece(an EU member state) over Cyprus. Things get out of hand fast and it's just happens that the Battlegroup on call has Irish troops in it. The battlegroup goes in to calm things down but the Turks have other ideas and open fire killing one or more Irish soldiers.

Now are you telling me that Ireland will remain nuetral in such an event?????

I didn't think so.

oscarBravo

Irish soldiers have (unfortunately) been killed in the past, on peacekeeping missions. So far, Ireland has yet to declare war on anyone as a result.

ninty9er

nhughes100 wrote: »

And another thing, consider this possible scenario and tell me Nuetrality isn't a joke.

Turkey(a non EU country and long may it last) attacks Greece(an EU member state) over Cyprus. Things get out of hand fast and it's just happens that the Battlegroup on call has Irish troops in it. The battlegroup goes in to calm things down but the Turks have other ideas and open fire killing one or more Irish soldiers.

Now are you telling me that Ireland will remain nuetral in such an event?????

I didn't think so.

Battlegroups are so called because it's the European term for Batallion or whatever....we have a number of them already.

Ireland will not be engaging in any frontline battle under any circumstances and our role as has always been, will be in peacekeeping.

Like I previously mentioned about the Swiss and the Swedes...producing fighter jets and having the largest per capita airforce aren't exactly hallmarks of military neutrality.

I agree on the Air Corps and Navy patrolling capabilities, but the Spanish fishermen would be of secondary concern to me behind the drug cargo. I actually have aproposal on the Navy.

SeanW

ninty9er wrote: »

Like I previously mentioned about the Swiss and the Swedes...producing fighter jets and having the largest per capita airforce aren't exactly hallmarks of military neutrality.

Actually, a well funded Air Force and massive standing army are central planks of any serious claim to military neutrality.

Because if a Neutral county is invaded or attacked, it can respond to that invasion or aggression without any need to call on allies or rely on any defense agreements.

I believe Belgium and Holland were "neutral" in World War II, but in reality they were just a light lunch for the Third Reich. Unlike Switzerland.

We on the other hand, know that if we ever get into trouble, the US military and the RAF will be over here in heartbeat. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Irish Air Force called in the RAF to help patrol our skies ...

Ireland is "neutral" alright tell me another one

ninty9er

SeanW wrote: »

Actually, a well funded Air Force and massive standing army are central planks of any serious claim to military neutrality.

Because if a Neutral county is invaded or attacked, it can respond to that invasion or aggression without any need to call on allies or rely on any defence agreements.

No arguments there.

SeanW wrote: »

We on the other hand, know that if we ever get into trouble, the US military and the RAF will be over here in heartbeat. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Irish Air Force called in the RAF to help patrol our skies ...

This is true, but I imagine we'd have the Luftwaffe and ALA deployed within minutes if we were subject to hostility from the UK. I like the idea of a Swedish type army, but the Irish people aren't great ones for paying to get what they want.

Galliard

ninty9er wrote: »

Battlegroups are so called because it's the European term for Batallion or whatever....we have a number of them already.

Ireland will not be engaging in any frontline battle under any circumstances and our role as has always been, will be in peacekeeping.

Like I previously mentioned about the Swiss and the Swedes...producing fighter jets and having the largest per capita airforce aren't exactly hallmarks of military neutrality.

I agree on the Air Corps and Navy patrolling capabilities, but the Spanish fishermen would be of secondary concern to me behind the drug cargo. I actually have aproposal on the Navy.

So producing fighter jets etc is not a hallmark of military neutrality?

But someone else says that we cannot be neutral unless we have the hardware needed to fight off an aggressor.

Which is it?

Scofflaw

Galliard wrote: »

So producing fighter jets etc is not a hallmark of military neutrality?

But someone else says that we cannot be neutral unless we have the hardware needed to fight off an aggressor.

Which is it?

Have a look at the post immediately above yours.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

Just on what OscarBravo said, Yes Irish soldiers have been killed but by terrorist organisations, my point was that if another country was directly responsible how could we remain nuetral.

Also Ireland's role in Somalia was peace enforcement not peace keeping. Sorry I don't believe that Irish troops won't be deployed to a frontline situation and why shouldn't they be deployed? They're well equipped and trained and thats what one of the main reasons for joining an army.

The question still remains is nuetrality a joke? Regardless of the upcoming referendum I still believe it to be so.

bonkey

nhughes100 wrote: »

Just on what OscarBravo said, Yes Irish soldiers have been killed but by terrorist organisations, my point was that if another country was directly responsible how could we remain nuetral.

At a guess, by not declaring war on them.

Neutrality, however, does not mean "a refusal to defend oneself".

Sorry I don't believe that Irish troops won't be deployed to a frontline situation

In order for teh Irish troops to be deployed, as has been established, the Irish government would have to vote in favour of same.
If they do so, then our (non-Constitutional) neutrality will be at an end...just as it would be if our government voted today
to send our troops onto some frontline.

The question still remains is nuetrality a joke?

Neutrality in general, or the Irish flavour of it?

Regardless of the upcoming referendum I still believe it to be so.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Personally, I think the world is a better place because - as a simple example - there is a nation who can act as an intermediary between Iran and the US, despite those nations having no official contact with each other.

That role is fulilled by Switzerland, and it is purely and solely because of the nature of Swiss neutrality that both sides are willing to trust it as an intermediary of good faith.

If Ireland's neutrality is a joke to you, then I would suggest that the problem is that Ireland is not neutral enough, not that it is too neutral.

purple'n'gold

In the grand scheme of things it makes no real difference to rest of the world whether we are “neutral” or not. As far as we in Ireland are concerned we are a pro western democracy, members of the EU and under the de facto protection of NATO. We have a small naval service which does a good job but could be better resourced because of the illegal importation of drugs. We do not have an air force, nor do we need one. If we are in need of the services of a jet fighter the RAF will be here in about 20 mins. Our army was set up to defend the state from dissidents from within, a job it has done professionally and faithfully since 1922. It was never intended to fight a war. It is simply not big enough or equipped for that. It is good that our troops are now going to get overseas experience as members of European battle groups and on EU missions. I have always detested this ridiculous triple lock nonsense where our government kow tows and genuflects to the UN. It’s absurd that a country like China, can decide whether we can deploy our troops or not.

nhughes100

I can just imagine the Turks/Iranians/whoever's troops waiting on the Irish government to be recalled from the Summer break so we can vote on whether our forces can fight them or not. Once they are deployed as part of a battle group they will be as fair game as any other combatent. What are they going to say - Don't shoot that lad with an Irish flag on his uniform, he's nuetral.

Ireland is not nuetral, that's why Irish nuetrality is a joke. To have a pre-determined position to any conflict is simply a joke. I personally think that nuetrality in general is a cop out.

As purple and gold correctly points out we are under effective Nato membership in all but name, we are a pro-western state and are members of the EU. All of this negates any claim to possibly being nuetral.

We are definitely not too nuetral. We are pro-West, pro-EU - not nuetral, mutually exclusive.

Bonkey makes the point that because we would not declare war on a country that has killed Irish troops we would still be nuetral? So we would have the same international standing with the agressor as with other member states in the battlegroup?That's why it's a joke, completely unrealistic and unworkable. An outdated idea that should be constitutionally superceded.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

Just on what OscarBravo said, Yes Irish soldiers have been killed but by terrorist organisations, my point was that if another country was directly responsible how could we remain nuetral.

At a guess, by not declaring war on them.

Neutrality, however, does not mean "a refusal to defend oneself".

Indeed, it doesn't even mean not attacking other countries. It means not being party to other people's conflicts.

Hence the rather invidious argument over the military implications of membership of the EU. If a fellow member of the EU were attacked, would we respond by declaring war on the aggressor?

The answer, I think, is no. I suspect that if the UN determined the attack/occupation as illegal, we might accept a non-frontline role for Irish troops along with other forces under UN control - but we would not actually declare war on the aggressor, or involve Irish troops in any assault on the aggressor's forces or territory, because that would make us party to the conflict. What would happen, almost certainly, is that the government would declare a state of emergency - and if you look at article 3.3 of Bunreacht, you'll see that gives them quite adequate powers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

These battlegroups which we are a party too are going to involve Irish troops in situations where they will be parties to conflicts. The enemy isn't going to differentiate, all forces in hostile areas will be fair game. Ireland on one side, some aggressive country on the other - When you pick sides, you aren't nuetral. Farce.

ninty9er

HOW MANY TIMES.

No matter what you believe. The UN isn't in the business of promoting war.

They decide if our troops can leave the country
in addition
The Government must approve. (BTW get your facts straight, the goevrnment works 52 weeks a year. Even when other TDs are out of a job when the Dáil is dissolved, the Government still has a job to do..It would not have to be "recalled")
in addition
The Dáil would have to approve. And going to war is one of the few things that a government could lose a vote on.

Irish troops will at NO STAGE be party to conflict. If you don't believe me, try and get hold of the 26 other heads of government of the EU adn they'll tell you!

Conflict RESOLUTION is and ALWAYS was the role of Óglaigh na hÉireann.

Manic Moran

Conflict RESOLUTION is and ALWAYS was the role of Óglaigh na hÉireann

Conflicts can often be resolved by militarily beating the crap out of someone if required, or at least threatening to do so. Not always, but it has its place in the diplomatic toolbag.

However, I thought the primary role of the DF was "To defend the State against armed aggression." I guess that could be a conflict resolution process as well, at least if they win.

NTM

Zambia

Neutrality is a crock

What good is a friend if they dont defend you and you are unwilling to do likewise for them in a time of need.What good is a sense of right and wrong if you fail to combat the latter.

If any EU member states soil was attacked by a non EU party , I would expect to see Irish troops fight for its defence. Just as French , German , UK and other EU nations would defend Irish soil if attacked.

The absence of the chance of such an occurance does little to hide the shame of the crime succesive irish goverments have rubber stamped.

A french conscript can die defending ireland and a Irish volunteer soldier can sit and watch France burn [again].

WoollyRedHat

I definitely support the Irish deployment to Chad, as it has a mandate and is not illegal.

However in the case of allowing American troops to use Shannon as a stopover point while carrying out now known rendition as well as aiding them for their illegal war has done away any claim we could have had to being fully neutral.

The fact they are still using it even with reports of rendition is ridicolous, so thanks Fianna Fail for that....

Fratton Fred

Ireland sold it's neutrality to Brussels...it cost €54bn if you're interested.

Scofflaw

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ireland sold it's neutrality to Brussels...it cost €54bn if you're interested.

Hmm...so it was a terribly good joke, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

Ninety9er, In true FF style you've dodged the question. Is nuetrality a joke?

You're the one who'd want to get your facts straight, Manic Moran has the correct role of the"defence forces" I'd love to know where you got your conflict resolution being the primary role of the Irish defence forces.

Now you state that the Dail has to approve any deployment - Fair enough but the Dail does not sit for 52 weeks in the year - fact. Yes I know the government are always on call and can be in a caretaker capacity but for the triple lock to work it is Dail, UN and government approval. So the Dail would have to be recalled. Again a fact.

Also you have completely ignored the reasons for why Ireland is nuetral in the first place. It is a falacy from DeValera not wanting to fight with the British during WWII.

Once deployed Irish troops will be fair game - Fact. My point which u seem to have missed is that once deployed we cannot remain nuetral.

Nuetrality is a sham, we aren't nuetral, we are pro-EU and pro-West - Fact.

And the UN may not be in the business of promoting war but an awful lot of it's members are - fact!

PS Fratton Fred - we sold a lot more then our nuetrality to Brussels, they got a bargain.

Manic Moran

My point which u seem to have missed is that once deployed we cannot remain nuetral.

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case: A genuine peacekeeping mission such as Cyprus may well have its participants regarded as neutral by both sides. But the presence of a UN mandate doesn't necessarily guarantee neutrality. For example, the Korean War. In the Chad case, I would be surprised if the Irish forces are regarded as neutral, mind.

NTM

nhughes100

I dont think the militia in Chad really know nor care whether the guy in front of them with the gun is nuetral or not.