If being an unaligned country with a large army is no deterrent to Putin's ambitions is it time for ROI to join Nato?
The alternative to having a vote in EU matters is the EU becoming what all those parties feared, a community for the strongest or a dictatorship.
We have a vote (referendum) on whether we join a EU Army or not as a result of the treaty referendum. Are you saying we will be asked to leave if we say No?
Is that a democratic institution?
Yes, (repeating myself) it was fair.
Provoking a crisis in our EU membership & putting it into doubt (edit: that would have been main effect of a 2nd "No" vote) would not be good for the economy, which as you point out, was in a pretty poor state at the time given country had just received a bail out package.
Leaving the EU, which lets be honest is what the "No" side in all these referendums down the many decades have wanted for Ireland (they always argue vote "No" on every EU treaty and it's always the same crowd of people in Irish political terms i.e. SF + the far left who despise the EU and always have) would not be a very good strategy for creating jobs in Ireland.
What's "interesting" about it? The crisis is not so far away, it is at the EU border, and we are in the EU for all you might wish it were not so. The crisis is having fairly negative effects on some EU members due to refugee flows from Ukraine. Several EU members are under threat from Russia, it all feels a bit different from where they are located I imagine. Though I suppose there is a logical consistency here if you'd argue, leave the EU, tell the others to go and shíte (as its 1000s of km away), maybe even do a little bit of cozying to Putin/Russia and play up on "neutrality" for some cheap oil say like India....no crisis for us!
I'd have zero issues with a referendum on the matter, I think a decision like that should definitely belong with the people.I see no benefit of handing away our neutrality, its served us well.
Was fair? At a time Ireland was in the economic doldrums , I'd say it what was what got Lisbon treaty over the line...of course the Lisbon treaty had nothing to do with creating jobs, if it would have been put in front of the French and Dutch they would have rejected it ...after all it was the EU constitution they rejected repackaged.Those of us who were intimately involved with the No side knew that the concessions on tax matters and neutrality would be eventually be sold down the river, especially with Varadkar a self confessed EU federalist and cohorts at the steering wheel.
What's interesting is they're using this crisis thousands of kilometers away to try justify it..
Agree with other response to you that an "EU army" is a long way off yet. Let's face it though...the member states' response to current crisis in Ukraine would be severely lacking without alot of US and UK support which doesn't seem ideal at all.
We need better coordination at EU level between the member states so they can act more coherently in policy related to external powers (like Russia). We need changes so they are not duplicating so much stuff in military procurement and R&D etc. and end up getting less than sum of parts in total, or having to go to the US or others for the weapons they need. We need to know if a member (incl. us unlikely as we believe this to be) is attacked by an aggressor, the others will aid them and will have the tools (incl. military ones) ready to do this quickly and well as a collective + won't be fumbling about in chaos to put together some response.
"Yes for jobs" was fair IMO. Voting "No" once again was going to create some kind of crisis around our continuing EU membership and possibly even end up with an "Irexit" (before coining of the term) of some description. Not good for economic stability and hence, jobs IMO.
"No" to avoid this imagined EU army, posters of soldiers in scary NBC gear and suggestion of people press ganged into the Euro-corps any day post voting yes (13 years later, no sign of it as yet) was a whole other level of distortion and shameless fear mongering vs the "Yes for jobs" slogan.
I think if Ukraine does accept neutrality (with security guarantees) as seems to be developing between the 2 countries now then the question is - who will supply the security guarantees? I do not think that Nato will be acceptable to Russia - so that only leaves a European army.
Whatever about joining NATO, Paul Murphy, and other PBP types are sponsoring a Neutrality Bill which would further stymie any developments in that area. Given the existing legal and constitutional provisions it's pure grandstanding.
The Irish Times has the inevitable photo of these clowns demonstrating outside the Dail, supported (of course) by those dedicated opportunists in Sinn Fein. What I found really annoying was that they were joined by Ivana Bacik. I used to give Labour a 2nd or 3rd preference vote, but not if they are now lead by a useful idiot.
Naivety is one thing, exaggeration is another. It remains to be seen how things will pan out but there are many degrees of things before the situation reaches one of a full-blown EU Army. It does not seem unimaginable that we will see a push for a more integrated and committed common defence policy for Europe, but that can take on many guises and has to go through the governance channels before its final form is ever realised.
My guess at present is that it will be something that doesn't even go as far as things like the NATO commitments on declarations of war (noting, by the way, that the promulgators of the term "EU Army" in media and commentary never seem to apply the term "NATO Army" as any suggestion of sovereignty impingements on NATO countries). It may simply take the form of a pact to assist the defence of EU external borders (i e. the Eastern borders) and commitment by member states to greater financial and resource contribution to that end. It may not even require the shedding of Irish neutrality, even if neutrality is a bit of a Get Out Clause from what is clearly our unequivocal alignment with the NATO nations and the Western order.
In my opinion though, all the talk of military defence is obfuscating what should be the real focus of our efforts in this century: energy. Because while we can talk about future wars and how we address them, it seems inevitable that the worst of those wars will centre around the race for resources. We as a country should not be too het up over neutrality, but rather being prepared for the day when our energy providers either run dry or become hostile.
Events dear boy
Events
You would have to be extremely naive not to think an EU army is on the cards..of course the yes side in the Lisbon referendum were partial to the oul lies also..."vote yes for jobs!"
our political class think a referendum on our neutrality is unnecessary....
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40839860.html
Looks like the concept of 'neutrality' is going to be valuable again. FG will be gutted.
Should have been preparing for it 20 years ago.
Unionists threatening to target Irish government buildings. I wonder if all the lads chomping at the bit to join NATO are as concerned about the threat in our own country? We should be preparing for a fractious security situation in Ireland and possible interference in Irish affairs from GB in the event of a Border Poll and/or Unification of our country.
Added this in an edit to above but repeating...I have not observed any major public or media outcry for more resources for them over last decade or so (or any other group arguing for it apart possibly from the army itself).
It would begin there for our politicians, otherwise they won't care (unfortunately I suppose). edit: I'm being agnostic about what party the politicians are from here. On health and housing there is that pressure at least, regardless of politicians/administrators failures to actually resolve the problems.
edit again: I should say I did not mean to put all the blame for the state of the defence forces on the public/electorate. Sometimes politicians have to try and take a lead on an issue, even if it is not on public's radar and even if expenditure of money on it might be unpopular.
Well you tried to state that an underfunded defence force was the people's fault.
Look it, will just leave it there if you want to soap box about the evils of the "power swap" in the state (assume you mean FFG) and health + housing crises which have nothing to do with Irish defence/security policy or underfunding of Irish Defence forces imo. I have not noticed any major public or media outcry for more resources for them.
Handy excuse when you need an excuse.
The 'system' isn't very responsive to health and housing needs now is it?
Yes, well hopefully we'll never need likes of what Ukraine might have call for.
In fairness to politicial system here it is generally responsive to public opinion and policy of not spending any money on defence forces and letting them rot is what electorate wanted (if they thought about it at all) I would judge. Silence gives consent. The reaction when or if the govt. starts trying to give them a lot more funds will be interesting.
Our neutrality should have a strong properly resourced defence force too, had the power swap not hollowed them out with cuts.
It won't be "neutrality" as we know it over here! If an agreement is reached, cannot see Ukraine will accept being de-fanged by Russia (neutral + a token military, ala Ireland).
If anything they will want to get the best of equipment they can get from the West/whoever else will sell it to them and will also have a big standing army + a national service of some sort i.e. similar to the others bordering Russia to the West in the EU that have a great mistrust of + fear of it based on unpleasant history.
Neutrality looks like it could be a part of the solution here.
Didn't look at what Kermit is referring to, but if these are results of 2 questions from the same sample, it looks like Irish public knows extremely little as regards these matters...
Not surprising since (I think - could be wrong and someone correct me if I am) it is a very, very long time since public had cause to really consider them here (during and then maybe also just after WW2??).
It came up (somewhat) during Lisbon referendum of course in context of the mutual defence/aid to other EU members aspects of treaty but afair of the campaign there wasn't alot of honesty or very clear debate about it or relationship with EU membership in future.
The noisiest/most visible stuff then was anti-EU side using an imagined future EU army + conscription of your kids/grandkids for it as a way to generate some FUD in the electorate around voting "yes", and throw a bomb into the middle of debate.
Join Nato and stop relying on the Brits to defend us?
Surely any good Irish republican would be against such a notion 😂
Not so good on neutrality though
30% favour dropping neutrality; 57% oppose
A poll in tomorrow's Business Post shows 48% of the Irish public back joining NATO.
Excellent, times really are changing.
I never mentioned imperialism.
I'll just meditate on what is wrong Yurt and give my opinion on it.
I know that I have certainly had my mind changed over the past few months when it comes to Irish neutrality. We are not neutral politically and An Taoiseach has stated as such in terms of Russian's invasion of Ukraine and I am of the opinion we should drop our military neutrality as well. Personally I would like to see us be full partners in a new EU defense force as a first step.
Why would I need to 'pick a side'?
Here's where the rubber meets the road. What 'agenda' are you actually talking about here? This is rhetorical because you'll inevitably answer with something bland, opaque and meaningless as 'imperialism'.
The hard facts of the matter is that Europe needs the US in NATO far more than the US needs to be in Europe.
European defence structures and cohesion would crack and likely crumble without the US.
This precise scenario has been policy gamed by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
https://warontherocks.com/2019/11/european-security-in-crisis-what-to-expect-if-the-united-states-withdraws-from-nato/
It's not pretty reading for Europe if the US packed up and went home.
You're in dreamworld if (and I believe you do think this way) you think Europe minus the US military presence will lead to Europe hitting the peace pipe from the Urals to the Atlantic. The exact opposite is the more likely outcome.
You prattle on in a conspiratorial agendas and empty rhetoric of 'imperialism', when the actual reality is that the US has largely footed the bill for, and locked-in the continent's security for nigh on 75 years.
You should seriously meditate what the fallout would be for Europe with out US NATO presence. You won't do it because you have a undergraduate's dunderheaded perspective on how the world works.
pick a side
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c50f1c871638bccbbf9aa952593dd0cd.svg)
