Interesting articles

sparky42

An article on Professor Richardson, wonder which part the President doesn’t approve of:

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/louise-richardson-who-the-president-said-was-a-dame-of-the-british-empire-is-anything-but-an-imperialist/a759918308.html

Larbre34

A President could be acclaimed by the main Parties, as in open nominations and refuse to facilitate anyone else bar an agreed candidate. But yes, it would be for 7 years.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120736690#Comment_120736690

No chance in hell and frankly unnecessary and anti democratic tbh.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120736900#Comment_120736900

I didn’t mean someone going for a second term if they were already in office, I was talking about the idea that if Higgins stood down then someone would be just picked to replace him for a full term.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120736745#Comment_120736745

It already happened eg 1974 and 1976 following death of Childers and resignation of O Dalaigh then Hillery served two terms never having to be elected by the public.

Cant see it happening now though.

Larbre34

It basically happened in 2004 too.

Mary McAleese was unopposed for a second term because the main parties wouldn't facilitate anyone else going forward. Dana tried a number of ways to get past them but failed.

If it meets the constitutional requirement the it isn't undemocratic.

But maybe the constitutional requirement is out of date. I certainly feel the 7 year term is a relic. 2 x 5 year terms is enough for any one person. Perhaps its time for the people to examine the whole Office, its parameters and its constitutional setting.

purplepanda

Lets face it the "neutralists" / anti NATO factions are continually trying to twist the national defence debate away from any modernisation & upgrade of Irelands fence capabilities to those of a modern western European nation such as envisioned in the Defence Committee report recommendations.

The above play lip service & some even claim that they agree with the findings of the above report, whilst others are even totally against Ireland's participation in an EU Defence force. Some also align themselves with those that want the capability of the Defence Forces undermined to the point of being totally unfit for any future role or even totally abolished.

Then we have those that call for full modernisation & upgrade of the national defence capability / the LOA 3 level option whilst being against NATO membership, I personally would accept this outcome, but only with a proper upgrade of Irish defence capability.

I do feel however that at least some of those of those calling for such a policy are just trying to split public opinion & once the NATO vs neutrality debate is finished they will align with those that don't believe in any any proper Defence funding modernisation & upgrades.

RavenP

@purplepanda I disagree to a considerable extent with what you have said. I personally favour LAO3+ with a flexible neutrality. Ireland is a proud independent nation and it must be strong, proud and independent. It should tack close to the west, at least as long as it is in the Irish peoples interest to do so (who knows what the future decades hence might be), but joining NATO would tie Ireland to states, like the US, and U.K. who, on occasion, can be no more moral in their foreign policy and use of military power than Russia, when we dispassionately look at it (look at the US armies own assessment of the number of civilian dead in the Iraq war if you do not believe me). Ireland should reserve the right to cooperate with these countries and organisations on a case by case basis, but should not bind itself in to collective decisions. The EU may be a different case, if only because Ireland will be able to build the common security and defence structures of the EU as it evolves. We shall see. But I do not think anyone arguing strongly for enhanced defence but continuing neutrality is arguing in bad faith.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120736185#Comment_120736185

So the primary requirement to be presidential material is to be tall? 🙄

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120738875#Comment_120738875

And that’s not even in the top ten of inane posts Jonny has made, don’t mind him.

jonnybigwallet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120738875#Comment_120738875

I'm suggesting somebody who doesn't have the demeanour of a bleedin hobbit and whose views are not stuck in the 1950's. This fella should stick to writing poetry and knittin Aran sweaters. He simply ain't presidential at all! I have no more to say on this matter.

Larbre34

Makes a friggin change.

Hotblack Desiato

'stature', 'hobbit', then referencing perhaps the tallest Western president in history... 🙄

how is sizeism any better than racism?

Embarrassing posts tbh.

jonnybigwallet

Calling a spade a spade.

mupper2

We're drifting...

Larbre34

Jonny does enjoy drifting a thread with his inane bullscutter. A feckless troll of the highest order.

I very much disagree with Michael D's comments at the weekend, but I do respect him as a social advocate for his whole adult life. In other words, Jonny wouldn't be fit to lace his boots.

purplepanda

Thanks Raven P for your reply, I have no problems with many of your views & certainly agree with your opinion on LO3, I'm undecided about NATO, I believe modernisation & upgrade to the defence forces comparable to other western European nations with similar resources is actually the most important issue. I would much rather have LO3, than be in NATO with anything less.

As for NATO members they certainly can & do manage to keep out of being dragged into overseas conflicts & wars, nations such as German & France refused to participate in Gulf War Two & other nations such as Norway & Canada are prominent in United Nations peace keeping duties.

Would Ireland in NATO be more susceptible to UK & US pressure to participate in their military interventions? Possibly because of proximity, traditional cultural ties & trading relations to both those powers.

The issues I've mentioned above also apply to participation in a EU Defence Force, it also remains to be seen how the previously neutral, now NATO nations, Sweden & Finland approach this as Ireland was previously involved with those & others in military exercises. Some might even suggest EU Defence force future co-operation is undermined by most nations being in NATO.

The worst scenario is refusing to interact & co-operate with our neighbouring & regional nations in military matters. Especially when current military capabilities are totally understrength.

Grassy Knoll

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120742298#Comment_120742298

A lot of sense here - I agree Canada and Norway are two countries with proud peacekeeping / UN traditions that are also in NATO - I don’t see them at the aggressive end of the military spectrum and indeed both play important roles in furthering peace / humanitarian/ developmental internationally add to this the swedes and Finns now inside the NATO tent. This point should be widely articulated rather than some of the unchallenged rubbish being trotted out

Also we are members of the EU- IMHO joining has been the best thing we did since independence. We need to play our part in defending the organisation and assisting our fellow members who to a large extent who share our values and outlook - it is hypocritical and to an extent cowardice to say we support these but at zero risk to ourselves in terms of cost or on occasion life. If as I expect the Russians will in due course be sent packing and left smarting behind their border we could have decades of sniping and interference from them across the EU and elsewhere. We currently present as an undefended zone _easy pickings…

sparky42

Lads this talk about NATO is just taking the p!ss, it’s not on the table for discussion, even if the government parties decided to blow up their foreign policy (which they have made it clear they aren’t) NATO is not going to take on a basket case like us as things stand. The only people that are throwing up suggestions of NATO are the Left who either don’t want change at all, or who favour anti western positions.

I also see some suggestions that the Presidents dig at the Eastern European nations might be causing some diplomatic reaction for the government, who would have thought insulting them would have some fallout?

Larbre34

Its really been a 3-0 own-goal festival for the President.

I'm still bewildered at someone with such a grasp of language and nuance as he, and such experience in cabinet and in office as he, absolutely losing the run of himself in such a fashion. Did he get a bang on the head of late or something?

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120744013#Comment_120744013

Think he just couldn’t control himself when it comes to Foreign Policy and Defence, not with his politics.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120723355#Comment_120723355

Without addressing any other concept here, I'd observe that national service/conscription need not produce a large volume of people. I believe there are some nations where they select only a small number of the eligible population each year. Enough to meet needs, selective enough to gain quality, but not more.

Larbre34

And that I agree with.

If I were introducing a national service model, I would say that all able-bodied men and women must serve an aggregate 2 years before the age of 30, but that the service need not be military. It could be charitable or community work, it could be working with disadvantaged groups, outreach to homeless people or to victims of domestic violence etc. It could be volunteer sports coaching or after school classes for those who might need some extra attention. It could be environmental or tidy Towns type work.

For a top drawer military reserve in Ireland, you wouldn't realistically need more than about 20,000 card carrying reservists in active participation at any one time.

But I feel the benefits of a culture and volunteerism and people from all different backgrounds meeting and working to a common goal, military or not, would be hugely beneficial to the advancement of the nation.

Hotblack Desiato

Nice idea on paper but I and most others wouldn't / couldn't work for nothing for two years, there's nothing stopping those who want to though.

It's hard enough for young adults to establish themselves these days with degrees required for more and more jobs, and often not primary degrees either, so two years more of not earning on top of that? They'll be pushing 30 before properly entering the workforce, and any hope of an independent secure financial future seriously hit at best.

The costs of babysitting tens of thousands of people who don't want to be there would be astronomical. It'd be like community service only 100 times worse.

Tbh it also demeans the roles of those who actually work in those areas but they (like the military) tend to be very poorly paid anyway.

sparky42

There is also the issue of Ireland being Ireland, and pretty much everyone knowing someone who knows someone, how many would be dodging such service because of connections, money etc?

Larbre34

All of that is why I suggested in my post, a two-year aggregate of service from age 18 to 30, that would not generally interfere with full-time work or education and where it did involve a longer term commitment, like several months of full time training in an initial stage, that that would be paid service.

There would also be a retainer for those serving, spread out over the years of commitment.

The dodging of national service is as old as the idea of national service itself, but it's not beyond the intelligence of appropriate people to design a regime that only allows for exemption on medical grounds. And even then, there are only a few long term medical conditions along with permanent disabilities, that would exempt a person from not being able to contribute in some fashion, to a community or a charitable effort, if not to military service.

Hotblack Desiato

Or, y'know, we properly resource public services instead of expecting charities and volunteers (never mind conscripts!) to pick up the slack.

Larbre34

There isn't a developed Country in the World that doesn't have a culture of volunteerism and charitable activities, particularly in sectors where the State has no skills base, like maybe animal welfare or practical support for the needs of sufferers of a particular illness.

Your implication that taxpayer funded State services can solve every problem going, is obtuse bullshite.

Hotblack Desiato

Yeah right. We have dozens of charities providing essential services to disabled people, addiction services, etc. Basically the state outsources these services and saves money by underpaying because the operators can seek donations to make up the difference. Also the staff don't get the going rate, so-called "section 39" staff don't get public sector pay rises even though ultimately the state is paying their wages.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2022/1006/1327540-section-39-pay/

This was only after serious threats of strike action were made.

roadmaster

I see on Air Corps social media there is 4 irish pilots being trained at the UKs Defence Helicopter Flying School. How are they training are pilots while the uk struggles to train there own?

Edit: Turns out very good reason there is room for us

https://www.thesun.ie/news/10723878/raf-helicopter-training-flight-schools-no-students/amp/