nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Irish neutrality

RandomName2

It has taken several years, but it seems that the seed planted by the Lisbon Treaty has finally started to sprout.

www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-defends-neutrality-as-eu-steps-up-co-operation-on-defence-1.3129961

Fine Gael caught in a cleft stick due to their being the most pro-EU party ever conceived (besides maybe Macron's EM or Merkel's CDU) and defending the holiest of holy Irish international issues (namely neutrality).

In order to appease both camps Leo seems to be blurring the lines about what is a defensive alliance (or at least picking out a minor aspect of proposed legislation)

Having said that, co-operation around security and defence is changing. The threats that we face in the world are less about wars between countries, and more about threats created by terrorism, by extremism, and by cyber attacks for example.

...

And those areas are not areas in which we should be neutral. We should be very much involved in working with European partners to prevent cyber attacks to manage migration and to stand against terrorism.

Small acorns, mighty oaks.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

A Little Pony

Neutral about what though? ISIS? Shouldn't be neutral on ISIS as they are a pack of bastards. Plenty of Irish people helping out in areas effected by them.

Fratton Fred

RandomName2 wrote: »

It has taken several years, but it seems that the seed planted by the Lisbon Treaty has finally started to sprout.

www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-defends-neutrality-as-eu-steps-up-co-operation-on-defence-1.3129961

Fine Gael caught in a cleft stick due to their being the most pro-EU party ever conceived (besides maybe Macron's EM or Merkel's CDU) and defending the holiest of holy Irish international issues (namely neutrality).

In order to appease both camps Leo seems to be blurring the lines about what is a defensive alliance (or at least picking out a minor aspect of proposed legislation)

Small acorns, mighty oaks.

How does this differ from the Nordic Battle Group?

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

johnp001

Shannonwatch article from yesterday regarding government permits for transporting munitions through Irish airports.

Munitions of War applications processed by DTTAS: 1 Jan 2017 to 31 May 2017 inclusive
In reply to a parliamentary question from Clare Daly TD, the Minister for Transport Shane Ross TD provided details of permits granted to take munitions fo war through Irish airports and airspace over the period 1 Jan 2017 to 31 May 2017.

While the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) imposes imposes restrictions on military aircraft landing at Irish airports or transiting through Irish airspace, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (DTTAS) does not do the same for military contracted planes. According to DFAT, the military aircraft should be unarmed; carry no arms, ammunition or explosives; not be engaged in intelligence-gathering; and the flights must not form part of a military exercise or operation. But DTTAS has responsibility for the military contracted planes, and it gives them permits to take weapons through Ireland every day of the week.

The military contracted planes are operated by the likes of Omni Air International, Sun Country Airlines, Miami Air and Atlas Air. Most of these are carrying troop on their way to or from their deployment to warzones like Afghanistan or Iraq, and many of them land at Shannon.

This is in start contrast to what the government would have us believe about Irish neutrality.
More...

BlitzKrieg

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How does this differ from the Nordic Battle Group?

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

essentially there is a common security and defence policy of the EU, which has plenty of restrictions and compromises (it goes for another 4 articles listing what they can and cannot do)

In many ways its all kept firmly under NATO and UN guidelines and while Ireland is involved in a number of areas, we have firmly kept to areas in a similar fashion to our involvement in UN missions.

But there is in the EU treaties the structure to take the policy forward into a Common Defence which is outlined in the very 2nd section of article 42.

2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Problem is the above is difficult as since Nice the irish constitution specifically blocks Ireland approving this process

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.

Put simply any proposal for a common defence (EU-wide army) will require Ireland be excluded, The EU can form one, but it'll have to specifically keep Ireland out. But we still get to formally vote on it.

Which is probably to many the real rub. Even though we are guaranteed not to be involved we are still required as full members o nthe European Council to vote on every decision. Which to some might see as going against the notion of neutrality in its purest form.

But legally it's allowed. Both the irish constitution and EU treaty allow for it as the constitution only specifies that we cant approve a common defence if it involves Ireland, it does stop Leo from voting once that step is avoided.

Which I'm mostly fine with, If Germany and France or other EU states want to form a common defence I dont see why we should be blocking them.

In fact if anything we get an insane amount of power as a common defence would put those forces under EU control and according to section 4 of article 42

4. Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State. The High Representative may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission where appropriate.

We would get a veto on any military action those forces take even if we are not involved. So if a joint EU force wanted to take military action in Syria they would need approval of all EU nations including ireland, even if only French and German forces were going.

Of course by the royal we I'm really saying our current government at the time and specifically the Taoiseach. So it's not a massive win for peace but at the very least a clear line of responsibility that cant get muddled with claims of having *no influence*

AnGaelach

I don't believe that strongly in neutrality, I would much rather we took a proactive stance in combating groups like IS, Boko Haram or Al-Shabaab. I also believe in deepening our ties bilaterally with countries on security issues (the UK, the US, Germany/France), but I certainly do not support the idea of Ireland giving yet more sovereignty to a foreign entity in Brussels.

If the Germans and the French and the Italians want to build a common military, let them. But keep its competency restricted to their countries.

Lux23

Irish neutrality is a load of nonsense.

Xterminator

Irish neutrality is convenient and cost effective as we sit under the NATO shield anyway. All the benefits, none of the cost.

AnGaelach

Xterminator wrote: »

Irish neutrality is convenient and cost effective as we sit under the NATO shield anyway. All the benefits, none of the cost.

That's like saying there's no point in having clothing stores since you can get it from the Vinnies for nothing... You can but you really shouldn't unless you're in dire straits.

Fratton Fred

If the eu want to create their own defence force, then good luck to them, but I struggle to understand why they would bother.

Defence of Europe pretty much falls to NATO, which is a military alliance between several independent states and has the somewhat considerable backing of the US. The rules are pretty simple, attack one, attack them all. They can also be used for large scale UN missions, where a significant military presence is required.

So why bother having an eu one and who is in charge of it? NATO is purely a military alliance and each member of the NATO council is answerable to their respective governments. The EU is a political alliance, with essentially its own leader. So who is in control of the military, the individual governments, or the european commission?

AnGaelach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So why bother having an eu one and who is in charge of it? NATO is purely a military alliance and each member of the NATO council is answerable to their respective governments. The EU is a political alliance, with essentially its own leader. So who is in control of the military, the individual governments, or the european commission?

The common European military goes back to the Western European Union (which had nothing to do with the EU, it was a security agreement) in which the participants promised to aid one another with their full military might. Whereas the NATO guidelines don't make the same commitment, it instead allows each member to decide what it will provide.

The former is more concrete and definite, the latter is more flexible.

Since the WEU fell out of use until it was repackaged as an EU instrument, the French/Italians/Germans have wanted the strict WEU guarantee. With Trump's wobbling on NATO you can see why.

BlitzKrieg

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If the eu want to create their own defence force, then good luck to them, but I struggle to understand why they would bother.

The biggest talking point from those in favour is that it would drop costs massively as they could standardise their forces and cut out duplicate elements, though considering a similar notion was fielded by NATO in its early years I question if it is possible. NATO was meant to see a lot more standardisation which never materialised because every nation involved kept insisting on using their own variants or vehicles, i think the best they achieved was a standardised ammunition.

So why bother having an eu one and who is in charge of it? NATO is purely a military alliance and each member of the NATO council is answerable to their respective governments. The EU is a political alliance, with essentially its own leader. So who is in control of the military, the individual governments, or the european commission?

4. Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State. The High Representative may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission where appropriate.

So the Commission wouldnt be in control it would fall into the High Representative. Who is selected by a majority vote in both parliament and the European Council. But member states can also make an initiative individually.

But all control ends with the European Council (elected leaders of each country) who have to act unanimously

Which is why Ireland would be in unique situation being neutral but still having a full say in every action, regardless if we are involved or not.

If I was to have a concern on some of the talk at the moment is that a large number of those in favour of an EU army are federalists so are also in favour of getting rid of the European Council, which they feel hold the EU back.

Fratton Fred

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

The biggest talking point from those in favour is that it would drop costs massively as they could standardise their forces and cut out duplicate elements, though considering a similar notion was fielded by NATO in its early years I question if it is possible. NATO was meant to see a lot more standardisation which never materialised because every nation involved kept insisting on using their own variants or vehicles, i think the best they achieved was a standardised ammunition.

I've worked on standardisation projects within several companies across europe. It sounds great, but most countries just view standardisation as "Doing things our way".

Nice in theory, but ultimately very very difficult in practice. Even more so when you have major arms manufacturers lobbying each government to use their piece of kit.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

So the Commission wouldnt be in control it would fall into the High Representative. Who is selected by a majority vote in both parliament and the European Council. But member states can also make an initiative individually.

But all control ends with the European Council (elected leaders of each country) who have to act unanimously

Which is why Ireland would be in unique situation being neutral but still having a full say in every action, regardless if we are involved or not.

so in reality, it could be even less effective than NATO in combating any immediate threats.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

If I was to have a concern on some of the talk at the moment is that a large number of those in favour of an EU army are federalists so are also in favour of getting rid of the European Council, which they feel hold the EU back.

That would be my concern. Is this part of the "Progress" and "Ever closer union" that the federalists talk of? Would we end up with the two tier/speed europe, one of which is a superstate with a huge military and the other the countries that are basically on the periphery and living off the crumbs.

BlitzKrieg

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've worked on standardisation projects within several companies across europe. It sounds great, but most countries just view standardisation as "Doing things our way".

Nice in theory, but ultimately very very difficult in practice. Even more so when you have major arms manufacturers lobbying each government to use their piece of kit.

so in reality, it could be even less effective than NATO in combating any immediate threats.

I'd agree with most of your points. I dont expect it to be much of a saving,

That would be my concern. Is this part of the "Progress" and "Ever closer union" that the federalists talk of? Would we end up with the two tier/speed europe, one of which is a superstate with a huge military and the other the countries that are basically on the periphery and living off the crumbs.

Not really considering most of the federalist (ALDE) meps come from smaller countries like Belgium, Spain, Holland and Bulgaria. EVER closer Union and Progress is not exclusive to federalists both the socialist (SEP) and conservative (EPP) parties in the EU (who are by far the two biggest) have similar talk but both of them have refused to consider removing the European Council. The wonder of politics where people actually discuss is that people find they might agree on one thing but not the other so it looks right now that the EPP and ALDE are agreeing on the need for an army, but would not agree on removing the european council and I'd in a rare example would side with the EPP on this, the european council has its problems (mostly everyone keeps ignoring its there when discussing the EU) but I do feel that the final executive call should fall on the elected leaders of each state.

Syphonax

Werent we forced to accept the Lisbon Treaty after rejecting it? Irish neutrality only exists in the minds of anti-British Irish reunification. We are most definitely being railroaded as poster boys to show how well the EU works, this despite the wishes of the electorate effectively wanting to remain neutral, as an peripheral island of Europe, like the UK.

blanch152

Syphonax wrote: »

Werent we forced to accept the Lisbon Treaty after rejecting it?

Don't remember anyone forcing me to vote for it, or the rest of the majority who did.

Syphonax wrote: »

Irish neutrality only exists in the minds of anti-British Irish reunification. We are most definitely being railroaded as poster boys to show how well the EU works, this despite the wishes of the electorate effectively wanting to remain neutral, as an peripheral island of Europe, like the UK.

Why should we remain neutral? We have trading partners in Europe, we share a common heritage with our neighbouring island and the rest of Europe, we should be allies.

Jim2007

Syphonax wrote: »

Werent we forced to accept the Lisbon Treaty after rejecting it?

Nope not even remotely close. Get back to us when you can demonstrate that the two versions of the treaty were the same.

oscarBravo

Jim2007 wrote: »

Nope not even remotely close. Get back to us when you can demonstrate that the two versions of the treaty were the same.

It doesn't matter whether or not they were the same; nobody was forced to vote for either proposition. This wittering nonsense about being "forced" to vote just won't go away, no matter how stupid it is.

Syphonax

blanch152 wrote: »

Don't remember anyone forcing me to vote for it, or the rest of the majority who did.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Nope not even remotely close. Get back to us when you can demonstrate that the two versions of the treaty were the same.

Eh we were forced into voting twice on this, once for Irish Democracy, the second time for Europe.

oscarBravo

Syphonax wrote: »

Eh we were forced into voting twice on this...

Nobody was forced to vote. What an epically ridiculous thing to claim.

Syphonax

Id say the second time was a forced vote which was not democratic in any way shape or form

blanch152

Syphonax wrote: »

Id say the second time was a forced vote which was not democratic in any way shape or form

Who forced us to have a vote on a different Treaty? I don't remember anyone in the Dail with guns to the TDs' heads when they passed the legislation and neither was there anyone with a gun to my head when I voted. So how were we forced?

Isn't the more accurate account a combination of the facts that the Treaty was changed to meet Irish concerns and that the Irish people more fully realised the consequences of their decision. Aren't we all hoping for a similar outcome on Brexit?

oscarBravo

Syphonax wrote: »

Id say the second time was a forced vote which was not democratic in any way shape or form

Doubling down on a ridiculous claim doesn't make it less ridiculous. Nobody was forced to vote.

AnGaelach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Doubling down on a ridiculous claim doesn't make it less ridiculous. Nobody was forced to vote.

Deliberately misinterpreting what someone is trying to say doesn't do you any favours. The "forced to vote" means they ignored a result and organised it to be run again, they simply weren't going to take "No" for an answer.

He doesn't mean someone stood there with a gun saying "exercise your democratic right or face the consequences!!" and portraying it that way is quite disingenuous.

AnGaelach

blanch152 wrote: »

Isn't the more accurate account a combination of the facts that the Treaty was changed to meet Irish concerns and that the Irish people more fully realised the consequences of their decision. Aren't we all hoping for a similar outcome on Brexit?

Yes, because that's what democracy is. It's the people making a decision and then bureaucrats informing them that their decision was actually wrong and so we'll renegotiate something slightly different with none of the main objects really changed and have you run it again...

No, I'm certainly not hoping for a similar outcome from Brexit. I believe the people expressed their desire and fiddling with the outskirts to give them peanuts whilst not changing anything important is preposterous. Endorsing it is ludicrous.

oscarBravo

AnGaelach wrote: »

Deliberately misinterpreting what someone is trying to say doesn't do you any favours.

Actually, I'm reacting to the actual words used. You're putting a positive spin on them, and berating me for responding to the poster's words instead of your spin.

The "forced to vote" means they ignored a result and organised it to be run again, they simply weren't going to take "No" for an answer.

Oh look, you're defending something that's objectively untrue by saying something else that's objectively untrue.

The result of the first Lisbon referendum wasn't "ignored". If it had been ignored, the treaty would have been ratified even after the people voted against ratification. Instead, recognising that people had voted against ratification largely for mind-numbingly stupid reasons that had nothing to do with the treaty itself, the government secured some rather redundant guarantees that no, the treaty definitely doesn't mean any of the stupid things its opponents claimed it meant, and asked the question again.

I know, I know: there's a school of thought out there that says asking the same question twice is the most egregious affront to democracy imaginable, but that's the same school of thought that says stupid things about being forced to vote.

He doesn't mean someone stood there with a gun saying "exercise your democratic right or face the consequences!!" and portraying it that way is quite disingenuous.

If that's not what he meant, then he shouldn't use words that mean that.

I get that he's being all melodramatic and outraged about the horrific imposition of being given the opportunity to exercise his democratic franchise not once but twice (the horror!!!), but that doesn't change the fact that what he's saying is untrue whether taken literally or figuratively, as you've ably demonstrated by saying something equally untrue in his defence.

blanch152

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yes, because that's what democracy is. It's the people making a decision and then bureaucrats informing them that their decision was actually wrong and so we'll renegotiate something slightly different with none of the main objects really changed and have you run it again...

No, I'm certainly not hoping for a similar outcome from Brexit. I believe the people expressed their desire and fiddling with the outskirts to give them peanuts whilst not changing anything important is preposterous. Endorsing it is ludicrous.

I take it that you are happy to keep the 8th Amendment in the Constitution the way it is, after all the people spoke on it back in 1983 and they shouldn't be "forced" to vote again.

Syphonax

blanch152 wrote: »

Who forced us to have a vote on a different Treaty? I don't remember anyone in the Dail with guns to the TDs' heads when they passed the legislation and neither was there anyone with a gun to my head when I voted. So how were we forced?

Isn't the more accurate account a combination of the facts that the Treaty was changed to meet Irish concerns and that the Irish people more fully realised the consequences of their decision. Aren't we all hoping for a similar outcome on Brexit?

lol by making us revote we were forced into given a Yes on something we had already rejected. Its bemusing you cannot understand that fact. Has the British government treated their own citizens with the same disdain by making them revote on Brexit? Absolutely not.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Doubling down on a ridiculous claim doesn't make it less ridiculous. Nobody was forced to vote.

lol so you are bypassing the fact how our first vote on the Lisbon Treaty wasnt acceptable because of how the electorate voted and thus our democratic decision was rejected by our own government which forced the electorate to vote again.

oscarBravo

Syphonax wrote: »

lol by making us revote we were forced into given a Yes on something we had already rejected.

I see you've decided to adopt the tactic of repeating something that's untrue until it magically becomes true.

Neither you, nor anyone else, was made to vote in either referendum. Neither you, nor anyone else, was forced to vote either way. The idea of being "forced" to vote at all, never mind vote in a particular way, is completely ridiculous.

lol so you are bypassing the fact how our first vote on the Lisbon Treaty wasnt acceptable because of how the electorate voted and thus our democratic decision was rejected by our own government which forced the electorate to vote again.

I'm not "bypassing" any facts, whatever that means. The first referendum outcome wasn't the one the government wanted, sure. So the government were faced with a choice: either refuse to ratify the treaty they had negotiated on the basis of some utterly laughable reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with the treaty itself; or secure some meaningless "clarifications" and ask again for permission to ratify.

I'll repeat my earlier point: our democratic decision wasn't rejected. The outcomes of both referendums were respected: when we voted no, the treaty wasn't ratified; when we voted yes, it was.

AnGaelach

oscarBravo wrote: »

The result of the first Lisbon referendum wasn't "ignored". If it had been ignored, the treaty would have been ratified even after the people voted against ratification. Instead, recognising that people had voted against ratification largely for mind-numbingly stupid reasons that had nothing to do with the treaty itself, the government secured some rather redundant guarantees that no, the treaty definitely doesn't mean any of the stupid things its opponents claimed it meant, and asked the question again.

What a horridly simplistic view, and you've essentially agreed with my previous point (the one you cut out of your reply) that we received a minor fiddling at the edges with none of the main points changed.

Calling it stupid because you don't agree with how they voted doesn't mean it's stupid.

It's not simply that we were asked twice to vote on this, it's that it is becoming the modus operandi of the EU. We rejected Nice, until we were shown the folly of our "mind-numbingly stupid" ways. We rejected Lisbon, until you so kindly showed us our stupidity and gave us the choice to recant. Had we rejected the Fiscal Compact it is widely accepted that we'd have graciously been given a second chance!

There's a reason they did away with asking the Continentals their opinions after the EU Constitution was rejected. There's a reason they prefer simply ramming things through Parliaments rather than consulting the people. We can't let those stupid people and their democracy get in the way of us being right, can we?

The only reason that we were so kindly given the choice to vote on each of them twice is because of our Constitutional set-up wherein the people of Ireland are sovereign, not the Parliament. We also have the safety valve of having a tradition that is now essentially legally binding on the Government to hold one, since they've always held one (whether necessary or not previously, they are necessary now).

But who really needs to bother with any of that when you can just fiddle with the outskirts of what was previously negotiated on and that intensify your campaign contributions on making sure the Yes side can outspend the No side.

blanch152 wrote: »

I take it that you are happy to keep the 8th Amendment in the Constitution the way it is, after all the people spoke on it back in 1983 and they shouldn't be "forced" to vote again.

A non-sequitur and a strawman all in one? It must be my lucky day.

oscarBravo

AnGaelach wrote: »

What a horridly simplistic view, and you've essentially agreed with my previous point (the one you cut out of your reply) that we received a minor fiddling at the edges with none of the main points changed.

Of course we received a minor fiddling at the edges with none of the main points changed - most of the reasons given for rejecting the treaty had nothing to do with the treaty.

Now, if I offer someone a ham sandwich and they refuse on the grounds that they don't like broccoli, where does that leave me? I can't exactly take the bloody broccoli out of the ham sandwich, can I? One option open to me is to explain to them that no, there's definitely no broccoli in the sandwich, and ask them again if they'd like one.

This, apparently, is the single most offensive thing I could possibly do, and - to stretch a metaphor - is basically indistinguishable from ramming not one, but two broccoli sandwiches down their throat as they struggle helplessly.

Calling it stupid because you don't agree with how they voted doesn't mean it's stupid.

Correct, but I didn't call it stupid because I don't agree with how they voted; I described many of the reasons given for how they vote as stupid, because those reasons are objectively stupid.

It's not simply that we were asked twice to vote on this, it's that it is becoming the modus operandi of the EU. We rejected Nice, until we were shown the folly of our "mind-numbingly stupid" ways. We rejected Lisbon, until you so kindly showed us our stupidity and gave us the choice to recant. Had we rejected the Fiscal Compact it is widely accepted that we'd have graciously been given a second chance!

I'm familiar with the mythology, but thanks for the potted review.

The flaw in your reasoning is the idea that asking the Irish people to vote in a referendum is anything whatsoever to do with the EU. As long as your argument is constructed on that foundation of hot air, it can't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.

There's a reason they did away with asking the Continentals their opinions after the EU Constitution was rejected. There's a reason they prefer simply ramming things through Parliaments rather than consulting the people.

I guess if you're determined to be wrong, you might as well be multiply, serially wrong.

The idea that the EU can ram anything through parliaments demonstrates nothing more than a deep-seated ignorance about how the EU works. I understand that it's popular, particularly among certain nationalist politicians, to portray the EU as some sort of sinister evil superpower bending feeble national legislatures to its unshakeable will, but being popular doesn't make it right.

The only reason that we were so kindly given the choice to vote on each of them twice is because of our Constitutional set-up wherein the people of Ireland are sovereign, not the Parliament. We also have the safety valve of having a tradition that is now essentially legally binding on the Government to hold one, since they've always held one (whether necessary or not previously, they are necessary now).

It's not legally binding; it's just politically infeasible not to. I've described this before as a sense of entitlement. You took issue with this description, so I gave you some reading material, at which point you went quiet, but now you've resurfaced with basically the same arguments.

There's no legal requirement for a referendum on an EU treaty, just a tradition of political cowardice coupled with a sense of entitlement on the part of the electorate.

But who really needs to bother with any of that when you can just fiddle with the outskirts of what was previously negotiated on and that intensify your campaign contributions on making sure the Yes side can outspend the No side.

Well, I guess the alternative was to go back and renegotiate the treaty to remove the conscription and abortion clauses. Oh wait.