If being an unaligned country with a large army is no deterrent to Putin's ambitions is it time for ROI to join Nato?
Zelensky will most likely be seeing the benefits of neutrality for him and his people if the war is to end.
I can't see it ending any other way tbh.
That's what I also though re his remark, or ranking of Ireland compared to others on his EU "list". We did not do as much as some others because we would not supply weapons or pay for supply of weapons. If you want to be militarily neutral, you have to accept people under invasion and looking for help will not rate your support quite as highly as that provided by others who will give weapons.
I don't think its quite a "loss of reputation", but is something that others will rightfully criticise or at least be unimpressed by and it goes with territory of being "neutral".
I don't agree with joining NATO, but agree with your main argument otherwise on repugnance of standing aloof should others in the EU be attacked (as it applies to Ireland increasing resources it gives to its own military, getting involved in EU common defence or future developments in it i.e. generally being prepared to support others militarily in EU if they were attacked).
Churchill didn't think a lot of us either in WW2, that's the thing about neutrality, people at war will not like it. That's unavoidable.
Yes, that is a price of being neutral (even if would not fully agree with comparison of Ukraine and WW2 UK or Zelensky and Churchill!).
The point is, it is a position that requires resolve and bravery. In Dev's case, while I think he held the country back in many respects, his bravery in facing down UK and American pressure in WW2 ensured that a fledgling country wasn't destroyed as collateral damage.
How could the country be 'destroyed' by the Brits and Americans during WWII?
More conspiracy kool-aid Francie?
It's a fact. Our neutrality is a policy not a constitutional lock.
And that's how it should be. Would you want Ireland locked into neutrality even under the gravest of security circumstances whereby the government had to scramble to put on a referendum on a military alliance in the event of a widespread war that put the survival of the state under threat? Madness.
The left (for the most part) want this referendum. What is the proposed wording in the constitution they want?
Do you seriously mean you don't know what that means? Fed up teaching you history, google the pressure Churchy and the Americans put Dev under. Then think of the target Ireland would have become if he had not been brave enough to resist Churchy and the Yanks.
Since our goverment have been reducing money spent on the miltary over the years tells you all you need to know
Not a chance Ukraine agrees to being neutral IMHO unless they have cast iron guarantees on security such as NATO's article 5 applying to Ukraine going forward even though they are not part of NATO.
I think we should be raising our military spending gradually from its currently paltry 0.3% of gdp until we get to about 1.5% of gdp where we were during the early 80's and along with that we should become full participants in the likely EU defense force and ending our policy of military neutrality. We can then take stock and see about NATO membership down the road IMHO after a period of years within an EU defense force framework.
Cannot believe that someone seriously posted that nonsense.
Resolve and bravery?
Cowardice and fear more like. Dev was afraid of being drawn into a war, that is all. The green-tinted picture of history in your head is probably derived from primary school history textbooks from your youth which were more like propaganda (800 years of oppression, the great Brian Boru etc.) than actual reality. Our education system has done a lot of good, but the picture of history presented through it was far from balanced. The result is severely unhinged views of history.
I think the 800 years of oppression stuff is in your head as I have never mentioned it on these boards.
Which version of history were you taught that did not include DeValera being pressured to join the war?
The Lisbon treaty should have been dead in the water under the EUs own rules, but then again it was the rejected constitution repackaged to make it "easier to swallow" as D'Estaing put it and deliberately made unreadable to avoid calls for referendums on it, the EU isn't undemocratic...its antidemocratic, it opposes the will of the people and has repeated form for it.As one EU commissioner put it the people didn't really reject more EU....
You've no claim on "the will of the people". You need to stop fighting the lost Lisbon treaty referendum and also accept fact Ireland is a member of the EU and the EU (and Ireland being a member of it) is fairly popular despite fact you personally have a huge axe to grind with it and hatred for it.
I think I've had (or read) previous exchanges with you about it (Lisbon treaty) so should not have mentioned it. Sorry.
...Anyway, to return to relevent subject of Ireland's future security/defence policy etc., on this "neutrality referendum" idea of the far left, seems fairly typical of zealots to wish to lock down what they support in the Constitution where it is safe and can't be got at by politicians if they fear the winds of opinion could be shifting somewhat on their beliefs. Very similar thing happened here I think in 80s with abortion.
It could equally be seen as the government being afraid to ask the people, because they know they answer they'd get.
Why else would there be the stench of the Greens being bullied into ignoring their previous position on Neutrality?
Despite your wishes, it is not all about you or your opinions on these boards.
In describing the propaganda of primary school history texts, I was not stating that you have been taken in by all of it, I was making a general reference to those texts. However, now that you have brought it up, I recall that it took 50 years for you to escape the propaganda of the "power swap". Who knows what propaganda elements you still cling to?
Getting back to DeValera, running away from the fight against the Nazis was one of the most cowardly acts of the first 100 years of the State. Thankfully we weren't as bad this time in the face of Putin, but it was a close run thing with some blaming the West and Ukraine right up until the time Putin invaded before their spectacular u-turns.
Which version of history did you read that says Dev was not under severe pressure to enter the war?
Still waiting.
Which version of history did you read that says he stood up to the Nazis and fought against them rather than cowardly running away?
You used the word 'destroyed' Francie, not me. So I am still wondering how the Brits or Americans would have destroyed the country.
I am all ears.
What?
What you really mean here is you don't have anything to back up your dismissal of my point. OK. That's fine.
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994 under the pretence it had security guarantees from Russia.
It will not be fooled twice.
FFS, Ridiculous.
Read it again mark.
Try and think about the consequences for us if Dev had given into the pressure and entered the war.
It isn't that hard.
Are you seriously suggesting that Ireland didn't run away from the fight against the Nazis and secretly sent an army to take them on?
You might be mixed up with Sean Russell from Sinn Fein who helped the Nazis rather than fight them.
What consequences exactly? Lay it out.
I'll leave to your attempt to cover your blushes at not being able to work out a simple sentence.
Clearly you saw 'UK, US and destroyed' and nothing else. Sad.
Will you answer the question and stop deflecting?
It was a serious mistake to stay out of World War II. Apart from the cowardly reputation it earned this country, things like eligibility for the Marshall Aid Plan would have helped this country develop quicker. Closer relations with Britain and the USA could have helped in the context of the North - remember it took decades more to get the US involved.
De Valera's running away from the fight against the Nazis set us back.
I have ALREADY given my view. Here it is AGAIN. It was an act of bravery by Dev to keep us out of the war. As a fledgling country having what little infrastructure we had developed destroyed by a German bombing campaign would have sunk us.
He was under immense pressure from events happening around him and events that might happen. Read the history. No surprise who was involved in trying to exert pressure. No surprise that they had and still have allies here in the south calling Dev's stance 'cowardly'.
'Cowardly' would have been accepting Unity in return for selling out our neutrality, Churchill had no such problems, another Tory prepared to sell out Unionists if the prize was their own selfish aims.
While Churchill dismissed the proposal by Craigavon, the government later prepared detailed plans for an invasion of southern Ireland.
Churchill had Plan to Invade ‘Nazi’ Ireland - International Churchill Society (winstonchurchill.org)
From your own link:
"Invading Ireland was neither seriously considered nor necessary, so this article has to be taken as speculative. "
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62b46f6e38eb602cce4522002caf2975.svg)
