EU leaders to urge closer links with Nato

Mick Regan · 13-09-2010 11:55AM #1

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0913/1224278759260.html

Is there anything new in this? My understanding is that the EU already has the authority to call on NATO if needed?

Denerick · 13-09-2010 11:56AM

I was reading this this morning. Whats the big deal, exactly?

BetterLisbon · 13-09-2010 04:52PM

Mick Regan wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0913/1224278759260.html

Is there anything new in this? My understanding is that the EU already has the authority to call on NATO if needed?

It brings us closer to NATO policies and is as such another compromise on neutrality.

The Volt · 13-09-2010 04:53PM

BetterLisbon wrote: »

It brings us closer to NATO policies and is as such another compromise on neutrality.

What neutrality?

Scofflaw · 13-09-2010 05:22PM

BetterLisbon wrote: »

It brings us closer to NATO policies and is as such another compromise on neutrality.

What policies?

regards,
Scofflaw

digme · 15-09-2010 12:46PM

bombing Afghanistan, surrounding Russia? those type of ones bud

Denerick · 15-09-2010 01:19PM

digme wrote: »

bombing Afghanistan, surrounding Russia? those type of ones bud

Surrounding Russia? Has the UK moved closer to Ukraine again? Damn that pesky geography.

Scofflaw · 15-09-2010 02:49PM

digme wrote: »

bombing Afghanistan, surrounding Russia? those type of ones bud

No, what NATO policies does talking about closer cooperation in crisis management get us closer to?

regards,
Scofflaw

RandomName2 · 15-09-2010 03:11PM

Somewhat off-topic (although relating to my own thread) the Russian-Georgia war finally dismantled the hitherto untouched Golden Arches theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Arches_Theory_of_Conflict_Prevention

As Georgia does indeed have McDonalds outlets.

digme · 16-09-2010 04:39PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, what NATO policies does talking about closer cooperation in crisis management get us closer to?

regards,
Scofflaw

More wars,which I want nothing to do with.

View · 16-09-2010 07:44PM

digme wrote: »

More wars,which I want nothing to do with.

More wars?

You do realise that we haven't been involved in any wars as a result of Crisis Management?

Denerick · 16-09-2010 10:59PM

digme wrote: »

More wars,which I want nothing to do with.

Given that the EU and NATO fatally split over Iraq, I doubt that plucky little Ireland will be forced to be America's comic foil in some far flung corner of the middle East.

Scofflaw · 17-09-2010 01:49PM

digme wrote: »

More wars,which I want nothing to do with.

And which have nothing to do with crisis management, any more than going to a NATO wine and cheese would involve you in a war.

cordially,
Scofflaw

caseyann · 17-09-2010 02:08PM

If it took us out of neutrality and started this crap of trying to draft our kids into their stupid ass conflicts.It would be over my dead body they would get any of my kids in army.

Lockstep · 17-09-2010 04:28PM

caseyann wrote: »

If it took us out of neutrality and started this crap of trying to draft our kids into their stupid ass conflicts.It would be over my dead body they would get any of my kids in army.

In fairness, Ireland has never really been neutral;

During WWII, Ireland's 'neutrality' was mainly a statement to avoid civil war. Irishmen joined the British army, Irish intelligence was sent to the Allies, Allies had use of Irish airspace, Allied troops were sent to Northern Ireland to be returned home whereas Axis troops were imprisoned in the Curragh.
Ireland opted out of NATO but MacBride sought to arrange a similar bilateral arrangement with the US but the US refused.
Even today, Irish citizens are freely able to serve in the British armed services.
During the Cold War, it was clearly obvious which side Ireland was on.

Ireland's neutrality has always been heavily biased.

ANarcho-Munk · 18-09-2010 04:20PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

In fairness, Ireland has never really been neutral;

During WWII, Ireland's 'neutrality' was mainly a statement to avoid civil war. Irishmen joined the British army, Irish intelligence was sent to the Allies, Allies had use of Irish airspace, Allied troops were sent to Northern Ireland to be returned home whereas Axis troops were imprisoned in the Curragh.
Ireland opted out of NATO but MacBride sought to arrange a similar bilateral arrangement with the US but the US refused.
Even today, Irish citizens are freely able to serve in the British armed services.
During the Cold War, it was clearly obvious which side Ireland was on.

Ireland's neutrality has always been heavily biased.

Very true. But I think Ailtiri na hAiseirghe deserve to get a mention too, if for just being an interesting footnote in history more than anything else. They were an openly anti-semite and fascist party who organised in Ireland during WWII and managed to secure 20 odd council seats at the local elections.

There's a little info more here: http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/books-architects-resurrection-ailtiri-na-haiseirghe-and-fascist-new-order-ireland-r-m-dougl-1

It goes some of the way in dispelling the myth that the larger Irish populace were progressive angels during WWII.

Scofflaw · 18-09-2010 06:40PM

ANarcho-Munk wrote: »

Very true. But I think Ailtiri na hAiseirghe deserve to get a mention too, if for just being an interesting footnote in history more than anything else. They were an openly anti-semite and fascist party who organised in Ireland during WWII and managed to secure 20 odd council seats at the local elections.

There's a little info more here: http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/books-architects-resurrection-ailtiri-na-haiseirghe-and-fascist-new-order-ireland-r-m-dougl-1

It goes some of the way in dispelling the myth that the larger Irish populace were progressive angels during WWII.

Given our contribution to the Spanish Civil War consisted of 320 Irish members of the International Brigade as against 750 Irish Greenshirts supporting the Fascist forces, I think that's always been pretty clear.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ANarcho-Munk · 18-09-2010 07:05PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Given our contribution to the Spanish Civil War consisted of 320 Irish members of the International Brigade as against 750 Irish Greenshirts supporting the Fascist forces, I think that's always been pretty clear.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think it has a tendency to write itself out of standard Irish history books though. And kickoutthejams didn't mention any of the facism that was evidently present in irish society in his post, I was concerned with pointing it out to the casual poster in the politics forum who doesn't have an in-depth understanding of irish history. Anyway, this is getting a bit off-topic.

Lockstep · 18-09-2010 07:39PM

ANarcho-Munk wrote: »

I think it has a tendency to write itself out of standard Irish history books though. And kickoutthejams didn't mention any of the facism that was evidently present in irish society in his post, I was concerned with pointing it out to the casual poster in the politics forum who doesn't have an in-depth understanding of irish history. Anyway, this is getting a bit off-topic.

Mainly because I don't feel it is necessary to point out that fascism existed in pretty much every European country at the time. It also had communist groups but again, I didn't feel the need to mention small factions in Irish society, given that anyone with a casual knowledge of WWII, would know that communist and fascist groups existed across Europe.

I was referring to the Irish government actions. Which constitute state practice in relation to neutrality.

P. Breathnach · 18-09-2010 10:10PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

In fairness, Ireland has never really been neutral....

And that is why many politicians use the phrase "military neutrality", which is an eat-your-cake-and-have-it way of doing business.

BetterLisbon · 20-09-2010 04:49PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And that is why many politicians use the phrase "military neutrality", which is an eat-your-cake-and-have-it way of doing business.

The term "military neutrality" is specious and (deliberately) misleading. You are "militarily neutral" if you control your army, but remember all the members of NATO control their armies too (as evidenced by the Dutch pull-out from Afghanistan). Thus NATO membership wouldnt violate "military neutrality" as we couldnt be forced to supply troops/weapons to a conflict and we would have a veto over NATO decisions.This is why anti-Lisbon campaigners compared the EU treaties with the NATO treaty.
Political neutrality (i.e. independent foreign policy) is not possible as an EU member unless we negotiate an opt-out from CFSP or withdraw from the union as a whole. My preference being for the former.

View · 20-09-2010 10:05PM

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Political neutrality (i.e. independent foreign policy) is not possible as an EU member unless we negotiate an opt-out from CFSP or withdraw from the union as a whole. My preference being for the former.

You are aware that the EU member states regularly follow independent foreign policies when it suits them? For instance, over the invasion of Iraq, the UK and Poland followed very different policies to Germany and France.

But, let me guess, you just haven't made any effort to read up about CFSP...

BetterLisbon · 20-09-2010 11:02PM

View wrote: »

You are aware that the EU member states regularly follow independent foreign policies when it suits them? For instance, over the invasion of Iraq, the UK and Poland followed very different policies to Germany and France.

But, let me guess, you just haven't made any effort to read up about CFSP...

The bit you forget is that we cannot adopt policies that are not in the eu's interest. Thus even if the union does not act we do not have complete freedom. Plus once a common policy is agreed all future governments are tied to it.
Thus a properly worded optout is needed for a truly independent policy.

Denerick · 20-09-2010 11:09PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Given our contribution to the Spanish Civil War consisted of 320 Irish members of the International Brigade as against 750 Irish Greenshirts supporting the Fascist forces, I think that's always been pretty clear.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah come on. The numbers we're talking about are tiny, and most Irish people fully realised that O'Duffy was a complete cretin. The only incident the blueshirts got involved in was firing on their own allies, before refusing to fight the Basque. I'd say Franco was very relieved to see the back of O'Duffy and his bungling crew.

View · 21-09-2010 12:12AM

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The bit you forget is that we cannot adopt policies that are not in the eu's interest. Thus even if the union does not act we do not have complete freedom.

As my previous example showed, it was perfectly possible for member states, during the run up to and the actual invasion of Iraq, to adopt policies and act with complete freedom even though the union had not adopted a common position on it.

Don't let reality intrude on your theories though...

BetterLisbon · 21-09-2010 04:06PM

View wrote: »

As my previous example showed, it was perfectly possible for member states, during the run up to and the actual invasion of Iraq, to adopt policies and act with complete freedom even though the union had not adopted a common position on it.

Don't let reality intrude on your theories though...

Since the single european act we have had to take the interests of the community/union as a whole into account when formulating foreign policy (the reason crotty won his case btw.) as such we do not have a fully independent policy. Using your example against you, it is pertinent to note that we never condemned the other EU members for their actions in Iraq/Afghanistan nor did we do anything to impede or inhibit their actions.

Denerick · 21-09-2010 04:33PM

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Since the single european act we have had to take the interests of the community/union as a whole into account when formulating foreign policy (the reason crotty won his case btw.) as such we do not have a fully independent policy. Using your example against you, it is pertinent to note that we never condemned the other EU members for their actions in Iraq/Afghanistan nor did we do anything to impede or inhibit their actions.

Come back to me when Irishmen are conscripted into Euro wide regiments. Then and only then you may have a point. All the rest is exaggerated quasi conspiracy theory twilight zone stuff.

Scofflaw · 21-09-2010 04:58PM

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Since the single european act we have had to take the interests of the community/union as a whole into account when formulating foreign policy (the reason crotty won his case btw.) as such we do not have a fully independent policy. Using your example against you, it is pertinent to note that we never condemned the other EU members for their actions in Iraq/Afghanistan nor did we do anything to impede or inhibit their actions.

We may not have condemned them, but France and Germany did, as did the incoming Spanish government. The pusillanimity of the Irish government in this respect was not dictated by respect for an agreed EU position, since there wasn't one. Impeding or inhibiting them...short of physical interference (which might have amounted to an act of war in itself), what are you suggesting might have been done?

regards,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon · 21-09-2010 05:16PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

We may not have condemned them, but France and Germany did, as did the incoming Spanish government. The pusillanimity of the Irish government in this respect was not dictated by respect for an agreed EU position, since there wasn't one. Impeding or inhibiting them...short of physical interference (which might have amounted to an act of war in itself), what are you suggesting might have been done?

regards,
Scofflaw

Again the single european act required us to consider the interests of the community/union as a whole when formulating foreign policy which restricts our foreign policy i.e. not fully independent.
Each subsequent treaty has retained that requirement and developed it further with the latest treaty requiring us to assist in some shape or form if another EU state is attacked or in the event of a "terrorist" attack.

All of which is irreconcilable with political neutrality. Reconcilable with "military neutrality" as we still control our army but again NATO members control their armies too.

When i say we cant impede or inhibit i mean we cant work against them either physically or diplomatically.

BetterLisbon · 21-09-2010 05:17PM

Denerick wrote: »

Come back to me when Irishmen are conscripted into Euro wide regiments. Then and only then you may have a point. All the rest is exaggerated quasi conspiracy theory twilight zone stuff.

The ever dependable strawman of conscription which allows the speaker to avoid talking about compromises on neutrality and the re-militarisation of europe.

Denerick · 21-09-2010 05:28PM

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The ever dependable strawman of conscription which allows the speaker to avoid talking about compromises on neutrality and the re-militarisation of europe.

'Re-militarisation of Europe'. When were we de-militarised? The collective armed forces size of combined European armies is comparable to the United States.

I don't care about neutrality. We were never really neutral, nobody in high office genuinely considers Ireland 'neutral' in the way the rest of the world thinks of the Swizz as 'neutral'. If you ask me that tired old line is the biggest strawman of them all.

EU leaders to urge closer links with Nato

Comments