If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Senator seeks court order to reveal any secret RAF protection deal



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Typos are proofreading. Fact-checking would establish that there are articles in the Constitution that require the consent of the Oireachtas for international agreements. There are. Interesting to see where the case ends.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl

    A non existent article is not proofreading. Takes 30 seconds to put it into the site I linked. And the Article states "before the Dail" nothing about the Oireachtas.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    The OP links to a tweet that links to the article that mentions the argument put forward by the Senator. "This refers to a number of sections of the constitution including Article 29 with regard to the sovereignty of the Irish State and Article 29.5.1 which states that any international agreement must come before the Dáil for ratification."

    In my copy of the constitution Article 29.5.1 reads "Every international agreement to which the state becomes a party shall be laid before Dail Eireann". Even on the link you supplied it looks like this:

    5   1° Every international agreement to which the State becomes a party shall be laid before Dáil Éireann.

    You might be confused by the subsection headings as 5.1 above is part of Article 29 hence 29.5.1

    The Oireachtas is both Dail and Seanad but for precision I agree the Dail is stated in Article 29.5.1

    Now, back to the point of my original post.

    EDIT: Got rid of a typo.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Very debatable if the British are friendly but its not the point. A deal is unconstitutional without Dail approval.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl

    Ah thanks for the clarification. But this could be a legacy issue from WWI or II and just continued. On a side note Would this not open a can of worms on Shannon.

    edit ofc WWII would be more lightly but you never know could have been blimps.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    He mentions post 9/11 so its not a carryover. Although you are quite right to suspect same as they didn't cancel the Emergency until the 1980's or 90's I think. Shannon is a transit agreement with weapons stowed afaik but RAF is for fighting and interception and such. Allegedly.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭bmc58

    Probably done by "Untoutchable top Civil Servants" on both sides with the tacit understanding of Government.We will never find out the truth anyway.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Crockwell has been outraged about this for the past 5½ years. The following is his contribution to the Order of Business Debate in the Seanad on 4th April 2017.

    "The Constitution is the most sacred document in the country. It drives everything we do and should control everything that takes place in this House. I refer to Article 15.6 on the right to raise and maintain military forces, which right rests exclusively with the Oireachtas.

    Imagine my shock at the weekend when I discovered that an agreement had been signed between this country and the United Kingdom granting permission to the United Kingdom to scramble fighter jets in Irish airspace. The agreement was signed by the Department of Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Irish Aviation Authority, which is not even a body responsible to the Oireachtas but a semi-State body.

    The agreement was signed before either this or the last Government came to power. I can find no evidence anywhere of Oireachtas oversight of the agreement or of a ministerial signature on it.

    We talk about our sovereignty all the time, yet we are allowing jets of the Royal Air Force, RAF, to fly over the country. The director of Irish military aviation and the general officer commanding, GOC, of the Air Corps has no knowledge whatsoever of the agreement. It is my understanding that when he learned of it, he was taken into a room, shown the agreement and promptly sent home without a copy of it. The person with responsibility for military aviation in this country was not a party to the agreement. "

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,495 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha

    What Id like to know about the agreement is what are the protocols for certain situations and are they entirely decided by the RAF. Like if a hijacked plane were flying over Ireland do they shoot it down immediately causing potential civilian deaths on the ground or do they take on more risk of allowing it to get even closer to the UK before shooting it down over the Irish sea. Or if there were an incursion into Irish airspace and they go to intercept are they allowed to fly low to avoid enemy radar.

    There must be loads of different scenarios to think of and you'd wonder do we have any input to decision making on them or is it all just outsourced to the RAF. Such an arrangement would be problematic as in an emergency Irelands interests may not necessarily fully align with the UKs. Were the RAFs actions to end up in the deaths of Irish civilians you could only imagine the political fallout that would ensue.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,948 ✭✭✭chicorytip

    An example of why Seanad Eireann is a scandalous waste of taxpayers money and should be abolished.

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2

    He's not alone, but Craughwell is taking a rather literalist approach to the Constitution and may well get no joy.

    Article 29.5.1 is commonly interpreted as pertaining to treaties that the state is signatory to and party to (and any Supreme Court case law referencing this article of the constitution such as Crotty deal with treaties) not mere procedural agreeements between states. This 'agreement' may have taken the form of an MOU or diplomatic communique, and is probably best viewed as an 'understanding' and not a treaty as the article is typically interpreted.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl

    It would be out at sea. There is nothing that's going to be flying fast enough not to be shot down over the sea. Now a fast moving missile would be different. But the odds of the destroyed missile killing enough people would be huge. The cheapest thing Ireland could do is invest in Radar not sure what the overlap is with NI. But on the west coast and down to the south. But at this stage Russia coming off the table Will China take up the roll of messing with NATO via Ireland. So for the Median term probably hijackings or unresponsive planes.

  • Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Ham_Sandwich

    better to be saving money and have the brits stick there neck out for us is it not

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2

    Irish politicians should know better than to take junkets like this, and some rules need to be set down. They never usually make the papers, but Oireachtas members are frequently whisked away on 'fact-finding' trips on the dime of foreign governments - some benign places, some not so benign.

    A bit like the financial interests declarations, these trips need to be fully declared for the public to see. If they want to see quare places and stay in nice hotels, let them go to their own pockets rather than being potentially compromised and used as a photo-op by dodgy governments.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl

    It's really odd what would a low level Irish politician be doing in Qatar. Would the Revenue not look into any gifts that may have been given ? I'm sure they have all been declared not insinuating anything untoward.

    Edit just to add

    Maybe their over there to expose the slaves ?

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2

    I think what we're seeing with Craughwell is the cognative dissonance of being put up in 5 Star hotels by the Qatari government, realising he's been wheeled around like a chump for photos as if he was at the statue of Kim il Sung in Pyongyang, and then it registers with him he probably needs to fire off some tweets about migrant workers as if he's a UN High Comissioner for Human Rights so people won't rake him over the coals.

    He should have never have taken the trip. If he wanted to expose the horrible conditions that the migrant workers exist under, he was not going to find any smoking guns on a Qatari government junket, so he should probably stop insulting his followers' intelligence on that front.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl

    Hahaha did not know he went down that rout lol. Who is being fooled. I'm sure their kept well clear of 5 star hotels. Maybe visits where something is being built.

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly

    Has this, the RAF having a defence clause over Irish airspace, not been known about for years? Strange to think a nobody wants to bring it up as if something not known about before

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,979 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure

    quoting from earlier in the thread:

    Leaving aside the Defence aspects there is a hugely important point to be seen: who decides on the direction of the country? Is it unelected officials or the Oireachtas? Has an illegal and unconstitutional agreement been reached by civil servants?

    Illegal and unconstitutional agreement?

    That seems to be the argument: that if such agreement has been made it needed Oireachtas approval and not having that it is unconstitutional and illegal.

  • Registered Users Posts: 26,577 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko

    ”frequent foreign trips”? Really?

    Got any examples to share?

  • The RAF would never make that decision it would only ever be made by a politician.

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2

    You think the RAF would insert an Irish Minister into their chain of command in an airliner hostage situation?

  • Registered Users Posts: 700 ✭✭✭dontmindme

    Yes yes, absolutely everyone has the right to know what our secret defence strategy is...of course!!

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,979 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭85603

    The Russians are only in our airspace to screw with nato/uk.

    Nato/uk then chases away a problem it caused in the first place.

    This is not a net benefit to us.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭85603

    @ gatling

    Do you think they want to bomb termonfeckin?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭85603