Ireland's "neutrality" - enlightened or cowardly and shameful?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Noddyholder

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Now Pat this not all about you :P

osarusan

How's the hangover OP?

Manic Moran

ChikiChiki wrote: »

We are not neutral despite what we claim and its a bit hypocritical to claim so. The same way we speak about the Irish in America being undocumented instead of illegal. Our airports are used for refueling by US forces. That is showing some bias imo.

No, it doesn't. Bias is the unequal application of rules or preferential treatment towards one over another. On a typical year, Ireland authorises military aircraft from about thirty different nations to refuel in the country. As long as Ireland applies the same rules to the US as it does to everyone else, that's neutral and unbiased.

Further, the fact that the neutral party is refuelling belligerents isn't unlawful under international law. There are even responsibilities that the neutral party has to them. An excellent historical case in point (since I'm doing a talk on it next week) is the events of late 1939 in South America: International law mandates that a neutral power (in this case Uruguay) detain a ship of one belligerent country for 24 hours if a ship from the other side leaves port. This rule was taken advantage of by the British after the Battle of the River Plate, when the German ship Graf Spee put into Montevideo to repair and refuel: The British dispatched a ship every 24 hours (which happened to already have been in Montevideo to refuel when the German showed up), Uruguay was thus forced to delay the German ship's departure (They used five guys, a tugboat, and pistol, so the Germans were nice enough to follow requests). The theory was that they could keep the German ship bottled up in the neutral harbor until reinforcements showed up. Those reinforcements refuelled in (neutral) Brazil on the way South.

Ireland is technically non-aligned, not neutral. It declares neutrality on various issues on a case-by-case basis.

However, I believe the OP's point is valid: Off-hand, outside of the Vatican, Liechtenstein and Costa Rica, I believe Ireland has the smallest military in the Western Hemisphere without a security agreement in place to make up for it.

The European experience in the 20th century has indicated the following:You can be neutral, with a powerful force (Sweden, Switzerland), you can save money on your force, but not be neutral (Iceland, Luxembourg), or you can do the best you can, but be a member of an agreement anyway (Norway, Albania). Hard experience has shown that 'neutral, with no teeth' is no guarantor of being left out of things, and that's before one gets to the indirect benefits (such as Ireland profiting from a free post-war Europe). When debating military policy, the Irish government and military frequently make comparisons with New Zealand, as a small island nation, way off on the outreaches of anywhere. The difference: NZ has defense agreements with other nations.

There's no need to get stupid over it. Sweden has a population about twice that of Ireland (And a surface area many times greater). It has a military about twice the size of Ireland's. So far, so good. The difference is that that military is equipped to engage in modern combat on air, land, sea, and undersea. Are the Swedes stupid? Or are they being realistic about their neutrality?

Noddyholder wrote: »

Yes I agree, We should do our part, though we could not afford to buy Modern war planes,( Sure we hadn't even got the capability to use/get rescues planes up at last weeks helicopter crash when asked)

Could not, or would not? Warplanes being beside the point, it was a maritime patrol aircraft which didn't get up. Aforementioned Sweden has a GDP a little over twice Ireland's, and a per capita GDP about 20% above. They place 1.24% of their GDP into the defense budget, Ireland runs under 1% and is the lowest in the EU. In addition to the 100 or so modern warplanes, they also have three maritime patrol aircraft. They seem to have managed it.

Grayson

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

UN missions arent a piece of cake either btw

I'm really proud of our UN missions. We do a hell of a lot for a country with a tiny armed forces.

Grayson

Manic Moran wrote: »

Ireland is technically non-aligned, not neutral. It declares neutrality on various issues on a case-by-case basis.

This is from wiki and for anyone interested in the technicalities of our special form of neutrality which moran mentioned just there.

Ireland's neutrality is in general a matter of government policy rather than a requirement of statute law. One exception is Article 29, section 4, subsection 9° of the Constitution:[6]
The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State.
This was originally inserted by a 2002 amendment ratifying the Treaty of Nice,[7] and updated by a 2009 amendment ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon.[8] An earlier bill intended to ratify the Treaty of Nice did not include a common defence opt-out, and was rejected in a 2001 referendum.[9]
The Defence Act 1954, the principal statute governing the Irish Defence Forces, did not oblige members of the Irish Army to serve outside the state (members of the Air Corps and Naval Service were not so limited).[10] A 1960 amendment[11] was intended to allow deployment in United Nations peacekeeping missions,[12][13] and requires three forms of authorisation, which since the 1990s have come to be called the "triple lock":[14]
A UN Security Council resolution or UN General Assembly resolution;
A formal decision by the Irish government;
Approval by a resolution of Dáil Éireann (the lower house of the Oireachtas or parliament, to which the government is responsible).
These provisions were modified in 1993[15] to allow for Chapter VII missions and again in 2006[16] to allow for regionally organised UN missions.[14]

Avatar MIA

Who are we going to tool up to defend ourselves against, the Faroe islands?

It only takes a rudimentary knowledge of history that we were not fully neutral in WW2. Were we goaded into giving more help, for sure, but we were only a generation away from giving significant sacrifice in WW1. There was a time when nearly half the British army was made up of Irish.

What services would you reduce, OP, to buy US/British military equipment?

goose2005

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It is laughable that a country, unlike Switzerland, that can not militarily defend it's so-called neutrality pretends to be so?

Switzerland's superarmy is a bit of a joke, most of the population live in the lowlands and they could have been overrun pretty easily. Certainly it would have been easier for Hitler to take Switzerland than Ireland.

To me it just seems self centered and morally bankrupt. How can a country be neutral between ISIS and the west for example - or as in WW2 - Nazi's and the western democracies.

WW2 was the western democracies, the western colonial empires, and one of history's worst tyrannies, against two of history's worst tyrannies and their colonial empires

It is cowardice isn't it? God forbid we would contributed a jot to the defence of the free world and our "army" personel playing soldier in a pointless "army". Let other countries do it (some smaller who put their own soldiers on the frontline).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_military_casualties_overseas

I guess we have the Brits to defend us. That's why we have gotten away with it so long. Even the Russians kept Ireland out of the UN for years because Ireland was too scared for WW2.

No-one joined WW2 until they were either attacked or their interests were threatened.

Mrs OBumble

Avatar MIA wrote: »

It only takes a rudimentary knowledge of history that we were not fully neutral in WW2. Were we goaded into giving more help, for sure, but we were only a generation away from giving significant sacrifice in WW1. There was a time when nearly half the British army was made up of Irish.

Indeed.

But still I've met a number of foreigners who regard Ireland as a Nazi-sympathising nation because of the official "neutrality" and the idea that my enemy's enemy is by definition my friend.

I'm not at all sure what the so-called neutrality is supposed to achieve today.

steddyeddy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Indeed.

But still I've met a number of foreigners who regard Ireland as a Nazi-sympathising nation because of the official "neutrality" and the idea that my enemy's enemy is by definition my friend.

I'm not at all sure what the so-called neutrality is supposed to achieve today.

I'd like to think that as a nation we've grown beyond what people think of us. There were far more Nazi sympathisers in Britain.

Zebra3

Who do we have to defend ourselves from?

Nothing on the news about any invasion?

Feel free to go murder brown skinned people in the ME if you want op. I'm sure the Brits will let you sign up for the Coalition of the Killing or whatever propaganda term they use these days.

MilesMorales1

Have you not made this thread before?

conorhal

ChikiChiki wrote: »

We are not neutral despite what we claim and its a bit hypocritical to claim so. The same way we speak about the Irish in America being undocumented instead of illegal. Our airports are used for refueling by US forces. That is showing some bias imo.

That's a flawed understanding of neutrality. It doesn't mean you don't get involved or provide tacit support to military action, it means that your parliament is the sole authority that can authorize it.
If you have a series of mutual defense treaties or you're a member of an organization like NATO then you can get dragged into all kinds of $h1t based on the agendas of others. How the hell do you think hundreds of thousands of British citizens ended up dying on the fields of Flanders because some Austrian duke was assassinated by some Bosnian anarchist?
Mutual bloody defense treaties.
We can still make the decision to involve ourselves in a stupid and pointless conflict if we want to, WE just have to make that decision, and looking at the utter mess that has been the military misadventures of the past thirty or so years, I'm of the opinion that we're better of not involving ourselves in them and restricting our actions to peacekeeping ones unless it otherwise becomes in out interest to do so.

Junkyard Tom

Zebra3 wrote: »

Who do we have to defend ourselves from?

The British, historically.

con___manx1

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It is laughable that a country, unlike Switzerland, that can not militarily defend it's so-called neutrality pretends to be so?

To me it just seems self centered and morally bankrupt. How can a country be neutral between ISIS and the west for example - or as in WW2 - Nazi's and the western democracies.

It is cowardice isn't it? God forbid we would contributed a jot to the defence of the free world and our "army" personel playing soldier in a pointless "army". Let other countries do it (some smaller who put their own soldiers on the frontline).

I guess we have the Brits to defend us. That's why we have gotten away with it so long. Even the Russians kept Ireland out of the UN for years because Ireland was too scared for WW2.

I think we should officially give up this lie and contribute. Stop hiding behind everyone else.

We weren't to scared to fight in ww2. We were a country less than 20 years when the war broke out. We had not got a lot of money and had just worked out how to get electricity to most homes in ireland. This was done with the construction of the dam at ardnacrusha. That was designed by the Germans coincidentally.
I wouldn't say develera cared too much about what Churchill had to say either or that his country was being bombed to hell after the trouble they caused over here.
The Germans helped us during our war of independence with arms. That could have played a part. Who knows ? I think the main reason was we hadn't a real army or money to form one but other reasons may have played a part.

Glenster

you're not obliged to get involved if there's a war on. I see Ireland as the state equivalent of the tea lizard meme.

Kermit.de.frog

A country so reliant on US for employment and GB for defence is NOT neutral. Does not matter how it is spun.

Can't defend our neutrality either morally or militarily.

purplepanda

What happens if the Russians under Putin invade any or all of the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania, which are in the EU? Or Turkey invades the rest of Cyprus?

Does Ireland assist the other EU (& NATO) nations to help them resist their oppressors, either in a military, humanitarian or financial capacity?

Or does the Lisbon treaty op out clause give an excuse to ignore the subjection of democratic nations who would need assistance in such a scenario?

Would Ireland really ignore the military occupation of a fellow EU state & not contribute to the liberation of that states national territory?

Full.Duck

Gwan and join the french foreign legion then and go fight ISIS.

DanielODonnell

It is all a load of nonsense, citizens shouldn't be tagged by their nationality, there were many republic of Ireland residents who fought in WW2 hence they were not neutral.
It is a bit like how these days people say Nothern Ireland and Scotland are pro EU when many of us like myself voted to leave, i'm just being tagged as a pro EU person.

LordSutch

tomwaterford wrote: »

Was WW2 not like 20 years after a million or so irish people were lead to their death in WW1 and not one of the biggest causes of support for independence??

Between 250,00 to 300,000 Irish men served in World War 1, and of that number its estimated that approximately 49,000 Irish men died ... not one million.

I think we should also have 'officially' made an appearance in WWII (on the side of the Allies).

andekwarhola

suicide_circus wrote: »

Have you pulled on the fatigues yourself, OP?

He prefers to inspire fatigue, rather than wear them.

How the hell do you expect Ireland to pay for a modern military? From which services/departments would you take that funding from? (And you can exlude funding from the US since they're currently reducing their support of minor nations)

So far in this thread, I've seen lots of statements that we should be involved but nothing about the practicalities. So.. those in favor.. Justify your positions with hard cold logic rather than this vague rubbish.

Personally, I think Ireland does extremely well with our UN peacekeeping commitments and the use of the Irish Rangers for counter-terrorism. We have a very good reputation worldwide as a peaceful nation... which is remarkably rare these days. And I'm very happy that Ireland has stayed out of the Coalitions messy and unjust wars, thus keeping International Terrorism from our shores.

So... How do we pay for a modern military?

fizzypish

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

A country so reliant on US for employment and GB for defence is NOT neutral. Does not matter how it is spun.

Can't defend our neutrality either morally or militarily.

Fair enough. We're a small country so we will be dependent on other countries. Is your problem that we all hold up the neutral label? We contribute to the UN forces and we try to toe the EU line so I don't think cowardice is fair. At the end of the day we are a tiny little island. Maybe we're hypocrites for waving the neutral flag (?) but we're a wee little island and need a bit of wiggle room. A stalwart opinionated Ireland could easily be crushed underfoot of the giants. I'm all for hedging our bets. Totally off topic but I'd be all in for mandatory public service (Army, council work ect???) for a year (It would inevitable be abused though). Ireland gives us a lot, I'd be happy to give back.

Zebra3

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It is laughable that a country, unlike Switzerland, that can not militarily defend it's so-called neutrality pretends to be so?

To me it just seems self centered and morally bankrupt. How can a country be neutral between ISIS and the west for example - or as in WW2 - Nazi's and the western democracies.

It is cowardice isn't it? God forbid we would contributed a jot to the defence of the free world and our "army" personel playing soldier in a pointless "army". Let other countries do it (some smaller who put their own soldiers on the frontline).

I guess we have the Brits to defend us. That's why we have gotten away with it so long. Even the Russians kept Ireland out of the UN for years because Ireland was too scared for WW2.

I think we should officially give up this lie and contribute. Stop hiding behind everyone else.

Are you presently employed in the Irish military and prepared to defend our country or are you a coward who leaves it to others?

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

Are you presently employed in the Irish military and prepared to defend our country or are you a coward who leaves it to others?

To be fair, most of us leave it to others.... hardly cowardly.

Although, he does seem the type to cry war! and then complain when the casualties come flooding in, and the economic costs go through the roof :rolleyes:

Laois_Man

as a far-fetched, hypothetical question....

If the Brits decided they would like to take the other 3 counties of the province of Ulster, and force ably did so in the morning, would anyone help us?

Avatar MIA

Laois_Man wrote: »

would anyone help us?

You mean, Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal? should your question not be... Would anyone else in Ireland care :pac::p

fizzypish

Laois_Man wrote: »

as a far-fetched, hypothetical question....

If the Brits decided they would like to take the other 3 counties of the province of Ulster, and force ably did so in the morning, would anyone help us?

Wouldn't the EU be obliged to intervene? Probably wouldn't though.

diomed

We've been 100% successful defending ourselves so far.
We don't need to defend ourselves by invading other countries in case they might be a threat.