General Election 2016 - debate about defence policy of competing parties

Morpheus · 10-02-2016 10:56am #1

not one partys manifesto includes anything much on foreign affairs or defence, except SF's sensationalist crap about positive neutrality - removal from BG's and more or less stepping back from the EU. Although if they get in and remove the SCC there could be plenty of work for the DF trying to handle the gangs. They will leave with us a justice system like that of a failed latin american country.

Ren2k7 · 10-02-2016 7:27pm

Morpheus wrote: »

not one partys manifesto includes anything much on foreign affairs or defence, except SF's sensationalist crap about positive neutrality - removal from BG's and more or less stepping back from the EU. Although if they get in and remove the SCC there could be plenty of work for the DF trying to handle the gangs. They will leave with us a justice system like that of a failed latin american country.

The fact that SF talks about strengthening our neutrality pretty much confirms they actually care about defence of the nation unlike the other parties. You can be sure a SF led govt would not tolerate the abomination that is the RAF defending Irish skies.

And since you brought up the SCC yes it should be abolished. Apart from NI I can't think of a single western democracy that maintains Diplock courts, even the US uses jury trials (Gitmo military tribunals not withstanding which the current POTUS regards as a national disgrace). Funnily enough the US doesn't need to use its armed forces to deal with gangsters. Trial by jury is a cornerstone of western civilisation. You want to know what's more effective against criminal gangs and terrorist groups? Bolster our police, military (dragging this thread back in topic), coast guard, customs and other parts of the national security establishment.

sparky42 · 10-02-2016 7:57pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The fact that SF talks about strengthening our neutrality pretty much confirms they actually care about defence of the nation unlike the other parties. You can be sure a SF led govt would not tolerate the abomination that is the RAF defending Irish skies.

And since you brought up the SCC yes it should be abolished. Apart from NI I can't think of a single western democracy that maintains Diplock courts, even the US uses jury trials (Gitmo military tribunals not withstanding which the current POTUS regards as a national disgrace). Funnily enough the US doesn't need to use its armed forces to deal with gangsters. Trial by jury is a cornerstone of western civilisation. You want to know what's more effective against criminal gangs and terrorist groups? Bolster our police, military (dragging this thread back in topic), coast guard, customs and other parts of the national security establishment.

I didn't know the IRA wanted to take up flying? And since SF don't have an issue with the IRA's Kangroo courts (or punishment bettings) then they can feck off about lecturing the rest of us about the rule of law.

Ren2k7 · 10-02-2016 10:23pm

sparky42 wrote: »

I didn't know the IRA wanted to take up flying? And since SF don't have an issue with the IRA's Kangroo courts (or punishment bettings) then they can feck off about lecturing the rest of us about the rule of law.

If you want to discuss politicial party's links to paramilitary organisations maybe we should ask about Labour's murky connection to the Officials, FF's past affiliation with the Old IRA and FG's links to a fascist paramilitary organisation.

A bit of consistency and less hypocrisy would be nice from the holier than thou troika and their supporters. This thread is about Ireland's terrible defence needs remember, a situation put into place by the three main parties since independence. So the next time some one claims SF would decimate the DF just ask yourself can things really get any worse for Ireland's military as it is? At least SF are talking about the DF, unlike FFGLAB who'd probably outsource our military needs to the Brits if given half the chance.

sparky42 · 10-02-2016 11:21pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

A bit of consistency and less hypocrisy would be nice from the holier than thou troika and their supporters. This thread is about Ireland's terrible defence needs remember, a situation put into place by the three main parties since independence. So the next time some one claims SF would decimate the DF just ask yourself can things really get any worse for Ireland's military as it is? At least SF are talking about the DF, unlike FFGLAB who'd probably outsource our military needs to the Brits if given half the chance.

Because without a shadow of doubt, I think SF's idea of "neutrality" is what the average person on the street thinks it is, ie we do nothing at all, spend nothing at all and just do whatever Russia and China approves of from the UN.

Not what countries like Sweden mean when they talk about "Neutrality" as in having the capability to enforce their will within their territory. Point out to me where in their figures are they suggesting spending enough to buy a fast jet capability, particularly as they are on record in the Daíl as opposing the "militarisation" of the PC-9's back when they were bought. If they were the advocates you imagine, they should have instead have been complaining about not buy Fast Jets.

BoJack Horseman · 10-02-2016 11:28pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Apart from NI I can't think of a single western democracy

GB, Germany, Norway.... to name 3 off the top of my head.... (remember the Anders Breivik trial)
In Sweden, juries are rare... Tbh, they are in most places. ... In France there is only a jury if the charge has a tariff greater than 15 years.

There are many others too.... If I was willing to search.

Ren2k7 · 10-02-2016 11:46pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Because without a shadow of doubt, I think SF's idea of "neutrality" is what the average person on the street thinks it is, ie we do nothing at all, spend nothing at all and just do whatever Russia and China approves of from the UN.

Since SF have never been in govt so you have no way of knowing what a SF govt will entail. Like I said they couldn't be any worse than the fools who've governed Ireland since 1922.

sparky42 wrote: »

Not what countries like Sweden mean when they talk about "Neutrality" as in having the capability to enforce their will within their territory. Point out to me where in their figures are they suggesting spending enough to buy a fast jet capability, particularly as they are on record in the Daíl as opposing the "militarisation" of the PC-9's back when they were bought. If they were the advocates you imagine, they should have instead have been complaining about not buy Fast Jets.

Again, how do you know what SF means when it talks about "positive neutrality"? Let's just remind ourselves that SF opposed barrack closures by both FF and FGLAB. We've talked about this before "Sparky" and you continually fail to address the key point, that FFGLAB have NEVER maintained a decent military in this country. So how can SF "wreck the DF" when there's nothing to wreck? Jesus! :rolleyes:

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

GB, Germany, Norway.... to name 3 off the top of my head.... (remember the Anders Breivik trial)
In Sweden, juries are rare... Tbh, they are in most places. ... In France there is only a jury if the charge has a tariff greater than 15 years.

There are many others too.... If I was willing to search.

Civil law countries have lay judges on the bench to assist judges, five such lay judges assisting in reaching a verdict for the Brevik trial.

We're not a civil law country BTW so your comparison is moot. The ONLY reason given by FFGLAB (they of Section 31 fame) for the retention of the SCC is because of possible jury tampering. Is this really such a major issue? The Americans have no problems providing jury protection in the trial of mafia bosses, drug kingpins and mass murderers, do they? Or are AGS and the DF now not up to defending 12 jurors for trials? As usual daft arguments being made by the right.

donvito99 · 10-02-2016 11:48pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Funnily enough the US doesn't need to use its armed forces to deal with gangsters.

Since when does Ireland use armed forces to deal with gangsters? The SCC is a civilian criminal court. The military courts you're thinking of are the ones championed by, oh... The IRA.

You want to know what's more effective against criminal gangs and terrorist groups? Bolster our police, military (dragging this thread back in topic), coast guard, customs and other parts of the national security establishment.

True, but our criminal system demands outstanding evidence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gangs have proved themselves as capable as the IRA at intimidating and silencing those who might provide the evidence required by the courts' standards. A man involved in a previous prosecution w/ Slab was beaten to death AFAIK.

And yeah, back on topic, the AC could firstly demonstrate to the rest of the DF that it's prepared to deploy overseas/take on a wider spectrum of roles with existing equipment before it accepts an additional ~100m per annum. The Army/NS provides the best return on investment at present.

sparky42 · 11-02-2016 12:00am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Again, how do you know what SF means when it talks about "positive neutrality"? Let's just remind ourselves that SF opposed barrack closures by both FF and FGLAB. We've talked about this before "Sparky" and you continually fail to address the key point, that FFGLAB have NEVER maintained a decent military in this country. So how can SF "wreck the DF" when there's nothing to wreck? Jesus! :rolleyes:

Of course they opposed closures, they are a party of opposition, it's very their nature (just look at them agreeing the latest Stormont deal and then walking away from it to avoid political issues in Dublin). That was nothing more than parish pump politics and trying to dress it up as being interested in the DF is just divorced from reality. It was to try and buy votes, just the same as the "Hospital in every village with 24 hour A&E" attitude from other politicians.

Honestly in terms of Barracks, given the infrastructure of the nation now, I'd prefer the investment go into a handful of bases to build up training capability/housing for personnel/families, and concentrate the Forces there rather than keep using the Garrison bases and layouts from the British deployments, and build up the few main barracks rather than duplicating low level investment in multiple areas.

And yeah if you want to talk about avoiding topics, you still haven't explained how their voting on the PC-9 acquisition, where they were against the spending of money in "weaponising" them with the gun pods and rocket pods (a handful of millions) tracks with support of the DF and willingness to spend on it.

Where within SF's manifesto's is there stated plans for extra DF expenditure?

Ren2k7 · 11-02-2016 12:06am

donvito99 wrote: »

Since when does Ireland use armed forces to deal with gangsters? The SCC is a civilian criminal court. The military courts you're thinking of are the ones championed by, oh... The IRA.

Putting quite a lot of words in my mouth there, I never mentioned military courts, nor am I "constructing" any such courts so you can tear down that strawman now. I also never said Ireland uses it Defence Forces to tackle gangsters, I was merely pointing out the absurdity in "Morpheus's" assertion that the DF will have "plenty of work" in "trying to handle the gangs". The DF already plays an ancillary role in domestic criminal matters but mainly in support of the Gardai like bomb disposal. AGS deals with criminals, not the DF and any potential upswing in gang related criminality will have little bearing on the work of the DF in their duties.

donvito99 wrote: »

True, but our criminal system demands outstanding evidence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given some of the miscarriages of justice in Ireland I should think so!

donvito99 wrote: »

Gangs have proved themselves as capable as the IRA at intimidating and silencing those who might provide the evidence required by the courts' standards. A man involved in a previous prosecution w/ Slab was beaten to death AFAIK.

Witness intimidation isn't exclusive to Ireland you know? When jurors were being threatened in US mob trials the US Congress never thought to itself to suspend jury trials and introduce Diplock Courts. Neither did the Brits......apart from in NI of course.

donvito99 wrote: »

And yeah, back on topic, the AC could firstly demonstrate to the rest of the DF that it's prepared to deploy overseas/take on a wider spectrum of roles with existing equipment before it accepts an additional ~100m per annum. The Army/NS provides the best return on investment at present.

Yeah, let's get back on topic. What do you mean "prepared to deploy"? The Air Corps do what they're capable of, no more, no less. Give them the means to deploy overseas in a rapid reaction capacity or peacekeeping role and they'll perform such a task without question. As will the other two branches of the DF.

BoJack Horseman · 11-02-2016 12:09am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

We're not a civil law country BTW so your comparison is moot..

You said 'western democracy'...

I gave you several of the many that are similar to us.

something isn't moot just cos you dislike it.

Ren2k7 · 11-02-2016 12:13am

sparky42 wrote: »

Of course they opposed closures, they are a party of opposition, it's very their nature (just look at them agreeing the latest Stormont deal and then walking away from it to avoid political issues in Dublin). That was nothing more than parish pump politics and trying to dress it up as being interested in the DF is just divorced from reality. It was to try and buy votes, just the same as the "Hospital in every village with 24 hour A&E" attitude from other politicians.

Everything there is just your opinion and subjective. The key facts remain, our DF have been gutted by YOUR party FG, with some help from FF and Labour. You can insist Ireland's forces would be destroyed by SF but....well....there's NO evidence to support such a suggestion.

sparky42 wrote: »

Honestly in terms of Barracks, given the infrastructure of the nation now, I'd prefer the investment go into a handful of bases to build up training capability/housing for personnel/families, and concentrate the Forces there rather than keep using the Garrison bases and layouts from the British deployments, and build up the few main barracks rather than duplicating low level investment in multiple areas.

FG closed Cavan barracks, the ONLY custom built base for the army since independence, and most modern to boot. They've done the very OPPOSITE of what you are endorsing.

sparky42 wrote: »

And yeah if you want to talk about avoiding topics, you still haven't explained how their voting on the PC-9 acquisition, where they were against the spending of money in "weaponising" them with the gun pods and rocket pods (a handful of millions) tracks with support of the DF and willingness to spend on it.

I'm not a "Shinner" but maybe it had something to do with the PC-9's being a monstrous waste of money.

sparky42 wrote: »

Where within SF's manifesto's is there stated plans for extra DF expenditure?

Where within FFGLAB's manifesto are there commitments to increased DF spending? Aye, but for some reason SF are the boogyman by some here. Catch yerselves on FFS!

sparky42 · 11-02-2016 12:15am

Let's remind ourselves of SF's White Paper submissions:

require:
•Neutrality to be enshrined in the Irish Constitution and codified in domestic
legislation;
•Withdrawal from the EU military forces and NATO's Partnership for Peace;
•Irish troops to train and serve abroad only under the auspices and leadership of the United Nations, and only with prior Dáil approval;
•No use of Irish airports, airspace, seaports, or territorial waters for preparation for war or other armed conflict by foreign powers;
•An end to Irish involvement in the arms trade and profit from war;
•Clear recognition and legal protection through a binding Protocol of Irish
neutrality in any new EU Treaty;
•Active promotion of demilitarisation of the EU;
•Formation of alliances with other progressive, neutral states to promote a
Human Security approach to international relations;
•Active promotion of UN primacy, UN reform and capacity
-
building to create a revitalised UN which is capable of fulfilling the promise of the Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and of upholding international law

Yeah the building up of an effective DF must be tied into the "Demilitarised EU" part I guess...

Ren2k7 · 11-02-2016 12:17am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

You said 'western democracy'...

I gave you several of the many that are similar to us.

something isn't moot just cos you dislike it.

And I pointed out that A)they're civil law countries and B)employ lay judges which correspond largely to juries in common law countries. Try as you might but there's few equivalents to Ireland's juryless SCC. And why are you arguing this on this thread anyway? Morpheus went into a anti-Shinner rage when I pointed out that all four parties don't care for the DF to which he responded with some stuff about the SCC. Again irrelevant here.

I really look forward to the day when SF take power in Ireland.

BoJack Horseman · 11-02-2016 12:18am

Some I wouldn't have any beef over, some is silly & some is impossible.....

It actually reminds me of Ken Livingstone's defence review goals in the UK.

Ren2k7 · 11-02-2016 12:18am

sparky42 wrote: »

Let's remind ourselves of SF's White Paper submissions:

Yeah the building up of an effective DF must be tied into the "Demilitarised EU" part I guess...

Where in that does it state SF will downsize the DF? Hmm? I'll remind you that Cameron wants to get Britain out of the EU. Ergo, by your own logic Britain must obviously be about to disarm and abolish its military. The size and strength of national armies isn't tied to any attempts at developing an EU military.

sparky42 · 11-02-2016 12:21am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Where in that does it state SF will downsize the DF? Hmm?

Where does it say SF will do JACK **** to the DF Hmm? Calling for a demilitarisation of EU (already vastly demilitraised to the point of being toothless) doesn't fit with your faith of the wonderland waiting for the DF if only SF were in charge. In fact it goes directly against such a policy, you don't argue for demilitarisation while spending on militraisation at the same time.

Ren2k7 · 11-02-2016 12:21am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Some I wouldn't have any beef over, some is silly & some is impossible.....

It actually reminds me of Ken Livingstone's defence review goals in the UK.

Everything in "Sparkys" list of SF submissions would be the national defence policies of the Swiss state it should be remembered (apart from UN peacekeeping of course). And look at the size of their armed forces.

sparky42 · 11-02-2016 12:22am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Some I wouldn't have any beef over, some is silly & some is impossible.....

It actually reminds me of Ken Livingstone's defence review goals in the UK.

The one that got laughed out of the briefing room this week by the Labour Backbenchers, seems they don't share their Shadow Defence Secretaries views.

donvito99 · 11-02-2016 12:24am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Everything there is just your opinion and subjective. The key facts remain, our DF have been gutted by YOUR party FG, with some help from FF and Labour. You can insist Ireland's forces would be destroyed by SF but....well....there's NO evidence to support such a suggestion.

Gutted? Brendan McFarlane, though to have led the group of IRA men who shot dead Gda Gary Sheehan and Private Patrick Kelly, has often stood with Gerry Adams, all in the name of peace of course. You might say they literally gutted him.

The DF is a logical cut back in times of austerity, particularly historic barracks.

I'm not a "Shinner" but maybe it had something to do with the PC-9's being a monstrous waste of money.

Where within FFGLAB's manifesto are there commitments to increased DF spending? Aye, but for some reason SF are the boogyman by some here. Catch yerselves on FFS!

SF are the obvious bogeymen as they're the only political party in the 26 counties who have been actively involved in killing members of the DF and AGS since the foundation of the Republic (post - '37). SF would do a lot better if they didn't have Ellis, Adams and McGuinness running the 32 county show.

donvito99 · 11-02-2016 12:25am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I really look forward to the day when SF take power in Ireland.

And you're not a "shinner"?

:D:D:D:D:D

sparky42 · 11-02-2016 12:25am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Everything in "Sparkys" list of SF submissions would be the national defence policies of the Swiss state it should be remembered (apart from UN peacekeeping of course). And look at the size of their armed forces.

The Swiss call for demilitraisation of the EU?

Ren2k7 · 11-02-2016 12:26am

sparky42 wrote: »

Where does it say SF will do JACK **** to the DF Hmm? Calling for a demilitarisation of EU (already vastly demilitraised to the point of being toothless) doesn't fit with your faith of the wonderland waiting for the DF if only SF were in charge. In fact it goes directly against such a policy, you don't argue for demilitarisation while spending on militraisation at the same time.

As I've already stated militarisation or demilitarisation of the EU has NO bearing on Ireland's Defence Forces. Ireland has an implicit opt-out of any pan European defence arrangement. The Brits want to leave the EU, they oppose the militarisation of the EU (they'd rather the economic related Common Market back and nothing else) so obviously they're not going to partake in any EU military pact. So, again, by you own logic Britain is intending to demilitarise its own forces.

Can we all now just agree that all four parties don't give a flying toss about the DF and will likely just maintain spending at about half a percentage each year?

BoJack Horseman · 11-02-2016 12:27am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Everything in "Sparkys" list of SF submissions would be the national defence policies of the Swiss state it should be remembered (apart from UN peacekeeping of course). And look at the size of their armed forces.

No, the swiss have a modest but successful defence industry.

Anathema to the peace loving Shinners.

Ren2k7 · 11-02-2016 12:31am

donvito99 wrote: »

Gutted? Brendan McFarlane, though to have led the group of IRA men who shot dead Gda Gary Sheehan and Private Patrick Kelly, has often stood with Gerry Adams, all in the name of peace of course. You might say they literally gutted him.

Um, OK?

donvito99 wrote: »

The DF is a logical cut back in times of austerity, particularly historic barracks.

In terms of GDP defence spending has been under sustained cutback since 2000.

donvito99 wrote: »

SF are the obvious bogeymen as they're the only political party in the 26 counties who have been actively involved in killing members of the DF and AGS since the foundation of the Republic (post - '37). SF would do a lot better if they didn't have Ellis, Adams and McGuinness running the 32 county show.

What if I told you that Labour have members in the Dail who were members of the Officials. And let's not forget FF who took part in a war against the Irish state and who's members killed soldiers and police officers of the state.

Time to move on buddy.

BoJack Horseman · 11-02-2016 12:32am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

And I pointed out that A)they're civil law countries and

C'mon Ren!

You said "western democracies".... don't move the goalposts!

Of the few common law western states, the UK has a juryless court.
NZ, only where the tarriff is more than 2 years & can be waived anyway.
The USA & Canada & Oz have juries....
Not exactly overwhelming!

You have suddenly isolated, specifically to a handful of common law states from the 60+western democtatic states just to suit your argument.

I really look forward to the day when SF take power in Ireland.

#ThePurge!

Ren2k7 · 11-02-2016 12:36am

donvito99 wrote: »

And you're not a "shinner"? :D:D:D:D:D

Nope, not a member.

sparky42 wrote: »

The Swiss call for demilitraisation of the EU?

They're hardly calling for the militarisation of the EU, are they?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, the swiss have a modest but successful defence industry.

Anathema to the peace loving Shinners.

How do you know what the "Shinners" want?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

C'mon Ren!

You said "western democracies".... don't move the goalposts!

Of the few common law western states, the UK has a juryless court.
NZ, only where the tarriff is more than 2 years & can be waived anyway.
The USA & Canada & Oz have juries....

You have suddenly isolated, specifically to a handful of the 60+western democtatic states just to suit your argument.

#ThePurge!

You're all over the place. I asked which countries have courts like Ireland's SCC and you only mentioned civil law countries which have equivalent lay judges. Whatever way you attempt to spin things for your party Ireland is an isolated extreme case of having a non-jury court.

BTW, anyone have FG's election proposals for the DF? :pac:

donvito99 · 11-02-2016 12:42am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Time to move on buddy.

Says the supporter of a party hung up on the notion of a 32 county Republic :rolleyes:.

Ren2k7 · 11-02-2016 12:46am

donvito99 wrote: »

Says the supporter of a party hung up on the notion of a 32 county Republic :rolleyes:.

Well........yeah, of course I support a 32 county Ireland. Most Irish people want a united Ireland. Why wouldn't Irish people support a UI? It's their patriotic duty!

Negative_G · 11-02-2016 1:09am

Since when did this become a thread about Sinn Fein defence policy or lack thereof?

There's a valid reason SF haven't been in power since the foundation of the state. That won't change any time soon so discussing their policies, and I use that term extremely loosely, is a complete waste of time.

There has been some interesting discussion generated so far but leave out the SF rubbish.

Morpheus · 11-02-2016 5:13pm

this is the place to discuss the defence policy - or lack thereof in most cases - of the various political parties vying for your vote.

seanaway · 11-02-2016 9:38pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Since SF have never been in govt so you have no way of knowing what a SF govt will entail. Like I said they couldn't be any worse than the fools who've governed Ireland since 1922.
.

Ah now....I'd say they could be and they would be.

Ren2k7 · 11-02-2016 11:19pm

Thanks for the new thread Morpheus. So yeah, let's discuss the actual policies of the main parties:

Fine Gael doesn't have anything in relation to the DF in their manifesto of any kind, preferring to focus on exclusively economic issues. Presumably their proposals for the DF align with the WP.

http://www.finegael.ie/our-plan/the-plan/

Fianna Fáil's manifesto OTOH contains quite a bit more information than the Blueshirts' proposals with plans to reactivate the 4th Western Brigade and increase the number of troops. Of course this is FF who routinely lie through their teeth. They also plan on increasing Garda numbers to 15,000. Fantasy stuff from the Soldiers of Destiny.

(ii) Expand the Defence forces to 10,500 personnel and Reserve Defence Forces (RDF) to 4,000 personnel

We will:
- Restore the Force to the strength of 10,500 personnel across the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service over a five year term at a cost of €22m. This includes the restoration of the Army to a three brigade structure by re-establishing the 4th Western Brigade based in Custume Barracks, Athlone.

- Devolve control of recruitment back to the Reserve Defence Force to increase numbers to 4,000 personnel with a €1.7m investment. We will energetically reinvigorate the Reserve by extending its geographical reach to ensure that all citizens have a Reserve unit within touching distance of their homes.

(iii) Maintain our Neutrality status
Ireland has a long and proud tradition of constructive neutrality that has enabled us to play an important role as peacekeepers across the globe. This has facilitated our ability to spearhead initiatives such as nuclear non-proliferation and the ban on cluster munitions.
- We will maintain our neutrality status as the bedrock of our Foreign Affairs policy.

https://www.fiannafail.ie/download/An-Ireland-for-all-Fianna-FaCC81il-Manifesto.pdf

Labour, like FG have nothing on their website on anything beyond the economy and more social welfare for the working classes. Nice

https://www.labour.ie/policy/overview.html

Sinn Féin, like FF address the subject of the DF by re-enforcing its commitment to neutrality above all else, a policy FF also share incidentally. They'd bring in a constitutional amendment to enshrine neutrality into the constitution, a position actually supported by much of the Irish public. Whatever one thinks of SF on the issue of neutrality they actually are closer to the public line of thinking than the average pro-NATO Blueshirt.

We will ensure that the State adheres to a policy of positive neutrality.

We will oppose the further militarisation of the EU and attempts to create a standing EU army, and we will terminate Ireland’s involvement in EU Battle Groups and the use of Irish airports by foreign armies engaged in war.

We will hold a referendum on inserting neutrality into Bunreacht na hÉireann.

We will continue to support the deployment of Irish troops on UN-mandated peacekeeping missions around the world that enhance our
neutrality.

SF would also continue sending the NS on refugee taxi duties in the Med.

https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2016/GE2016ElectionManifesto.pdf

So to sum up, the status quo from FG, Lab and SF while FF would increase the size of the army..........

I'm still not voting FFailure!

Ren2k7 · 11-02-2016 11:22pm

seanaway wrote: »

Ah now....I'd say they could be and they would be.

Let me just remind you that it was FG and Lab who disbanded an entire brigade and shut down Ireland's only purpose built army barracks. Now SF might be terrible for the Defence Forces. But let me reiterate.... YOU DON'T KNOW THIS! They've never been in government so no-one knows what their policies towards the DF so the ONLY thing we can go on is their manifesto which is pretty much, as you were.

Manach · 11-02-2016 11:35pm

I'd not have expected much on the various parties stance on the Military. Shade's of Kipling's Tommy. However given the outgoing's government handling of the issue of deserter parties, I would not believe the FG/Lab care overly much for defence.

sparky42 · 12-02-2016 12:04am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Sinn Féin, like FF address the subject of the DF by re-enforcing its commitment to neutrality above all else, a policy FF also share incidentally. They'd bring in a constitutional amendment to enshrine neutrality into the constitution, a position actually supported by much of the Irish public. Whatever one thinks of SF on the issue of neutrality they actually are closer to the public line of thinking than the average pro-NATO Blueshirt.

The average person on the street views Neutrality as what we have now, no capability to even enforce our own sovereignty and have zero interest/will to fund anything that would mean we could control our own airspace/waters and are perfectly happy to let the RAF do so (something you think they are SO outraged about, but barely even made the news). That is what the Irish public view as neutrality, it is not the Swedish version of depth charge unknown subs and maintain a large modern well equipped military with the supporting defence industry.

So I still fail to see how that matches with your idea of SF improving the DF in anyway, shape or form.

Morpheus · 12-02-2016 10:32am

SF always wanted to get rid of the SCC, the undermining of the Offences against the state act and to deconstruct the security machinations of this state.

I wonder have you actually read their Positive Neutrality document?
well if not, then you should, because it speaks about reducing our military expenditure and demilitarising the EU and by extension ireland.

We see our commitment to demilitarisation of the EU and universal nuclear disarmament as an extension of our commitment to fully demilitarise the conflict on this island.

It is about actively promoting and participating in conflict resolution, demilitarisation, and making politics work to redress legitimate grievances and achieve needed social changes – at both state and international levels.

Active promotion of demilitarisation of the EU

Such utter and complete BS i have never read before in my life. no alliances, no treaties, they want to break up the arms industry, incidentally worth thousands of jobs and billions to our economy.

• Ending involvement in the arms trade and instituting adequate and fully transparent export controls on dual-use goods

an absolute cluster f**k of a policy and it has no place in the current security climate.

i think... no I am... yes i'm going to be sick.

source:
http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2009/NeutralityDocument.pdf

sparky42 · 12-02-2016 1:44pm

Morpheus wrote: »

Enough of the blueshirt crap - keep it civil and respect others rights to support other parties.

SF always wanted to get rid of the SCC, the undermining of the Offences against the state act and to deconstruct the security machinations of this state.

I wonder have you actually read their Positive Neutrality document?
well if not, then you should, because it speaks about reducing our military expenditure and demilitarising the EU and by extension ireland.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2009/NeutralityDocument.pdf

See that's the thing, as I've said their version of Neutrality doesn't track with a Sweden or a Switzerland armed neutrality being able to defend and assert themselves. I have no idea where the idea that their "Positive Neutrality" means any investment in enlarging, improving, enhancing the combat capabilities of the DF.

Ren2k7 · 12-02-2016 3:20pm

sparky42 wrote: »

The average person on the street views Neutrality as what we have now, no capability to even enforce our own sovereignty and have zero interest/will to fund anything that would mean we could control our own airspace/waters and are perfectly happy to let the RAF do so (something you think they are SO outraged about, but barely even made the news). That is what the Irish public view as neutrality, it is not the Swedish version of depth charge unknown subs and maintain a large modern well equipped military with the supporting defence industry.

So I still fail to see how that matches with your idea of SF improving the DF in anyway, shape or form.

You'll note I never said SF would improve the DF, they'd just maintain then status quo, as would the other parties. FF are the only ones claiming they'd increase the size of the Army but.....well, that's quite hard to believe given they've got a seriosu credibility issue.

I'll also remind you that SF's belief in neutrality is the exact same as the other parties. FF also makes clear it supports the present policy of neutrality in its manifesto. In fact all the parties support neutrality. SF go further in advocating an amendment to Bunreacht with a neutrality clause added. Now I don't support such a move myself but if referendum were held tomorrow on a neutrality amendment it would be overwhelmingly backed. SF, and the other three parties are merely advocating what is the general public mood.

Morpheus wrote: »

Enough of the blueshirt crap - keep it civil and respect others rights to support other parties.

Firstly Gaelers themselves use the term 'Blueshirt' to describe themselves, they've taken ownership of the word so there's no malice in its use. But if you're so insistent on it not being used I'll politely ask that you and all the other Gaelers (better?) here stop using the Unionist term "Shinner".

Morpheus wrote: »

SF always wanted to get rid of the SCC, the undermining of the Offences against the state act and to deconstruct the security machinations of this state.

Getting rid of the SCC is an entirely separate issue from defence. I've gone into great detail as to why draconian acts like OATS and the SCC should be done away with. Presumably you also feel Section 31 should be brought back....

Morpheus wrote: »

I wonder have you actually read their Positive Neutrality document?
well if not, then you should, because it speaks about reducing our military expenditure and demilitarising the EU and by extension ireland.

Well obviously I did, I linked to it here when I pointed out ALL parties support neutrality and the status quo for the DF barring FF who supposedly support an increase in the size of the Army.

Morpheus wrote: »

Such utter and complete BS i have never read before in my life. no alliances, no treaties, they want to break up the arms industry, incidentally worth thousands of jobs and billions to our economy.

Er, no. What do you think "demilitarisation of the EU" means? Exactly what it means. They, like the British, don't want a federal EU army, they want a solely economic trading bloc. Ask the Tories or Kipper's if they want the EU to start encroaching on NATO's territory and you'll find the answer is a big no.

[QUOTE=Morpheus;98701922
an absolute cluster f**k of a policy and it has no place in the current security climate.

i think... no I am... yes i'm going to be sick.

source:
http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2009/NeutralityDocument.pdf[/QUOTE]

Well, yes, Ireland already has laws on prohibiting the export of dual use technology. Do you believe SF should be criticised for wanting existing laws to be adequately enforced?

Whether you like it or not Ireland's neutrality is going nowhere. No political party supports an EU army (it's constitutionally impossible for Ireland's to even join a common European defence establishment after Lisbon II) nor does anyone advocate we join NATO. There's a reason why FFGLAB don't attack SF's defence polices, because they themselves hold the very same views.

Ren2k7 · 12-02-2016 3:23pm

sparky42 wrote: »

See that's the thing, as I've said their version of Neutrality doesn't track with a Sweden or a Switzerland armed neutrality being able to defend and assert themselves. I have no idea where the idea that their "Positive Neutrality" means any investment in enlarging, improving, enhancing the combat capabilities of the DF.

Could you perhaps specify in what manner the other parties "version of neutrality" is different from SF's?

tipptom · 12-02-2016 3:36pm

Morpheus wrote: »

SF always wanted to get rid of the SCC, the undermining of the Offences against the state act and to deconstruct the security machinations of this state.

I wonder have you actually read their Positive Neutrality document?
well if not, then you should, because it speaks about reducing our military expenditure and demilitarising the EU and by extension ireland.

Such utter and complete BS i have never read before in my life. no alliances, no treaties, they want to break up the arms industry, incidentally worth thousands of jobs and billions to our economy.

an absolute cluster f**k of a policy and it has no place in the current security climate.

i think... no I am... yes i'm going to be sick.

source:
http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2009/NeutralityDocument.pdf

Oh God,another Boards mod and the usual buddies fapp fest tirade against SF coming up to the GE,how predictable.

But hey lets pretend its about defence.

Ren2k7 · 12-02-2016 3:52pm

The Green's announced their own manifesto today....

• A national debate to discuss Ireland’s role in today’s international community given our tradition of neutrality and an independent foreign policy.

• A strengthening of the truly pan-European Organisation for Security and co-operation in Europe (OSCE) as well as the United Nations

• An end to the use of Shannon Airport by US military forces involved in wars or any other military forces involved in military action that is not mandated by the above mentioned bodies, or that we consider to be an illegal or unjust action

• To ensure that Ireland is not complicit in the illegal transport of prisoners by the CIA or anyone else

• Increase oversight and reporting requirements for Dual Use Export Licences, including refusing licences to export to countries with questionable human rights records.

• Develop a system whereby all citizens would be encouraged to follow a path of service that contributes to their communities and contributes to the promotion of peace and defence in the world without necessarily making a commitment to full time contracts but through the reserve or civil defence services instead

• Provide PRSI credits to employers who give unpaid leave for training or duty

• Underpin military courses with civilian accreditation from educational bodies, to allow employers to benefit from better qualified staff

http://goo.gl/Rdz9kd

Ren2k7 · 12-02-2016 3:58pm

tipptom wrote: »

Oh God,another Boards mod and the usual buddies fapp fest tirade against SF coming up to the GE,how predictable.

But hey lets pretend its about defence.

Yeah, and let's pretend SF's defence policies are somehow different from FFGLAB. They're pretty much identical in fact, barring SF's support for enshrining neutrality into the constitution. What many on this subforum seem to forget is that the overwhelming majority of Irish people support the current policy of neutrality, as well as opposition to joining NATO or any EU common defence mechanism. The four main parties' support for this is merely a reflection of public opinion.

tipptom · 12-02-2016 7:15pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Yeah, and let's pretend SF's defence policies are somehow different from FFGLAB. They're pretty much identical in fact, barring SF's support for enshrining neutrality into the constitution. What many on this subforum seem to forget is that the overwhelming majority of Irish people support the current policy of neutrality, as well as opposition to joining NATO or any EU common defence mechanism. The four main parties' support for this is merely a reflection of public opinion.

Yep,and they will try to steer you on to the SCC to deflect from the party of law and orders abandonment of the Irish people to savages roaming up and down the country to save money so Abramovich could buy another yacht with money that he thought he had lost.

They decided to just give it them to ingratiate themselves to Merkal and Sarkozy and get Big Phil a well paid job for his incompetence but Enda owedwe pay that price.

They took away the one dedicated car and gardai who were successful in tracking these gangs and closed down Garda stations to save 500k.

The owner of the hotel could not get a reply from emergency services while the shooting was going on despite phoning three times and had to phone a personal friend who was a Garda to report it while another Garda station lay derelict yards up the road.

Now all of a sudden they cant put enough Garda on the streets because there is an election but not when they were murdering and torturing OAPs and torturing parents in front of their children,money needed to be saved to pay junior bondholders.

This is 2016,a jury does not have to be in even the same county as a trial of criminal gangs but just look at the opening post to see who this was all really directed at in the first place.

Negative_G · 12-02-2016 8:50pm

tipptom wrote: »

Yep,and they will try to steer you on to the SCC to deflect from the party of law and orders abandonment of the Irish people to savages roaming up and down the country to save money so Abramovich could buy another yacht with money that he thought he had lost.

They decided to just give it them to ingratiate themselves to Merkal and Sarkozy and get Big Phil a well paid job for his incompetence but Enda owedwe pay that price.

They took away the one dedicated car and gardai who were successful in tracking these gangs and closed down Garda stations to save 500k.

The owner of the hotel could not get a reply from emergency services while the shooting was going on despite phoning three times and had to phone a personal friend who was a Garda to report it while another Garda station lay derelict yards up the road.

Now all of a sudden they cant put enough Garda on the streets because there is an election but not when they were murdering and torturing OAPs and torturing parents in front of their children,money needed to be saved to pay junior bondholders.

This is 2016,a jury does not have to be in even the same county as a trial of criminal gangs but just look at the opening post to see who this was all really directed at in the first place.

Jesus, give it a rest will you.

tipptom · 12-02-2016 9:59pm

Negative_G wrote: »

Since when did this become a thread about Sinn Fein defence policy or lack thereof?

There's a valid reason SF haven't been in power since the foundation of the state. That won't change any time soon so discussing their policies, and I use that term extremely loosely, is a complete waste of time.

There has been some interesting discussion generated so far but leave out the SF rubbish.

So you had your anti SF rant and then says leave it out about SF

Now head on back to the opening post from the mod and see who brought SF to the thread or give it a rest yourself or do you not like replys to your anti SF thread.Now have a look further on and see who brought up SF and the SCC?

Now lets see you head back to the opening poster and tell him to give it a rest about SF,he was the one who brought them in from the off?

No didnt think so.

sparky42 · 12-02-2016 10:02pm

tipptom wrote: »

[/B] So you had your anti SF rant and then says leave it out about SF

Now head on back to the opening post from the mod and see who brought SF to the thread or give it a rest yourself or do you not like replys to your anti SF thread.

Now lets see you head back to the opening poster and tell him to give it a rest about SF,he was the one who brought them in from the off?

No didnt think so

His comment was when this was in the Defence of Ireland thread, not when it had been spun off to this.

tipptom · 12-02-2016 10:10pm

sparky42 wrote: »

His comment was when this was in the Defence of Ireland thread, not when it had been spun off to this.

???

BoJack Horseman · 12-02-2016 11:01pm

In case anyone is wondering, here is the rather late-night & probably deserted debate on the 2015 white paper in the Dail.

The DefMin & the FF & SF spokesmen make long statements before Mick Wallace & Clare Daly to their stand up routine.

The SF statement outlines their "positive neutrality" thing.

Ren2k7 · 13-02-2016 2:53am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

In case anyone is wondering, here is the rather late-night & probably deserted debate on the 2015 white paper in the Dail.

The DefMin & the FF & SF spokesmen make long statements before Mick Wallace & Clare Daly to their stand up routine.

The SF statement outlines their "positive neutrality" thing.

Shameful. Whatever our political outlook and POV I think we can all agree that no party or TD in the Dáil gives a damn about the DF. Not one. Sure they'll respect the forces and claim they deserve credit for all they do. But that'll be the height of their support for the Defence Forces. They need money, equipment and resources, not a slap on the back and told "job well done. Now here's your reduced budget to work with".

FG, FF, Labour, SF, Greens, Renua, Social Democrats, the Mick and Clare Detective Agency..... none of them have any interest in the military. Other countries militaries OTOH...............

Boreas · 13-02-2016 12:33pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

In case anyone is wondering, here is the rather late-night & probably deserted debate on the 2015 white paper in the Dail.

The DefMin & the FF & SF spokesmen make long statements before Mick Wallace & Clare Daly to their stand up routine.

The SF statement outlines their "positive neutrality" thing.

Wallace and Daly really are fantasists, and both guaranteed to be returned to the Dáil.

I hope that if there is a violent Islamist attack in Ireland and Shannon is used as the excuse she accepts her role in hyping the US use of the airport.

General Election 2016 - debate about defence policy of competing parties

Comments