Perhaps FF / FG should focus on fixing housing and the abysmal quality of our services before even considering going down this route
I pity the poor IT guys having to search for the near 20 year old word doc with anti talking points
There should be a referendum on it. It will shut all the new geo-political experts up when they realise that 80% of people want neutrality on this island
Why we give anyone a veto over our own Security policy is beyond me. The triple lock is clearly stupid.
“He claimed Ireland could be left unable to defend itself against attacks like Russia’s war in Ukraine.”
Forget far distant boogeymen. It’s our neighbour that has and always will be the one to be concerned about.
It’s very, very important that we resist this kind of military adventurism that the ruling class wants to engage in.
1. The triple lock is not the basis of our neutrality or lack thereof, it’s a mechanism to ensure our men and women are not sent off to have their legs blown off in some shithole on a ‘peacekeeping’ mission sponsored by the military-industrial complex. Arguing that Russia or China are bad-faith actors on the UN security council is naiive. All the permanent members are. The triple-lock’s inflexibility is a feature, not a bug. Varadkar suggested this first, and the fact he did so purely to be different to FF, tells you a lot about him IMO. To see it spread to FF is unfortunate.
2. Our neutrality or lack thereof is not the same issue as our military preparedness to defend the state. The latter should be maintained in any case, or simply given up on. Also, calling for military spending ‘but not for jets’ is a bit silly – if the defense of the state requires jets, then it requires jets.
3. You can’t call for a CA and a referendum on our neutrality but then say NATO membership is ‘off the table’. If we’re ruling out NATO that just means we become ‘aligned’, which is what we are right now. It would be a pointless exercise.
4. A CA on neutrality would necessitate military experts standing in a public forum telling everyone what the biggest threat to Ireland is. Hint: it ain’t the country on the other end of the continent. This would be entertaining, but also diplomatically problematic.
5. I am surprised that Andrews is calling for Ireland to commit to the defense of the EU as I would have assumed that as a career politician he would know that we already are. Ireland is signed up to the Common Security and Defence Policy, as well as PESCO, which he even refers to.
6. Legally limiting our involvement with EU defense to strictly non-nuclear conflicts is … childish. If the EU needs to go to war to defend itself, we’re pretty much already there.
7. Neutrality is not a ‘taboo subject’ – it’s just a settled issue. Throwing around phrases like ‘taboo subject’ is a bit like the old ‘just asking questions’ chestnut. We’re a NATO-aligned nation, tend to be neutral in conflicts, and usually only deploy troops under UN jurisdiction to keep the peace. It’s not complicated.
6 comments
Perhaps FF / FG should focus on fixing housing and the abysmal quality of our services before even considering going down this route
I pity the poor IT guys having to search for the near 20 year old word doc with anti talking points
There should be a referendum on it. It will shut all the new geo-political experts up when they realise that 80% of people want neutrality on this island
Why we give anyone a veto over our own Security policy is beyond me. The triple lock is clearly stupid.
“He claimed Ireland could be left unable to defend itself against attacks like Russia’s war in Ukraine.”
Forget far distant boogeymen. It’s our neighbour that has and always will be the one to be concerned about.
It’s very, very important that we resist this kind of military adventurism that the ruling class wants to engage in.
1. The triple lock is not the basis of our neutrality or lack thereof, it’s a mechanism to ensure our men and women are not sent off to have their legs blown off in some shithole on a ‘peacekeeping’ mission sponsored by the military-industrial complex. Arguing that Russia or China are bad-faith actors on the UN security council is naiive. All the permanent members are. The triple-lock’s inflexibility is a feature, not a bug. Varadkar suggested this first, and the fact he did so purely to be different to FF, tells you a lot about him IMO. To see it spread to FF is unfortunate.
2. Our neutrality or lack thereof is not the same issue as our military preparedness to defend the state. The latter should be maintained in any case, or simply given up on. Also, calling for military spending ‘but not for jets’ is a bit silly – if the defense of the state requires jets, then it requires jets.
3. You can’t call for a CA and a referendum on our neutrality but then say NATO membership is ‘off the table’. If we’re ruling out NATO that just means we become ‘aligned’, which is what we are right now. It would be a pointless exercise.
4. A CA on neutrality would necessitate military experts standing in a public forum telling everyone what the biggest threat to Ireland is. Hint: it ain’t the country on the other end of the continent. This would be entertaining, but also diplomatically problematic.
5. I am surprised that Andrews is calling for Ireland to commit to the defense of the EU as I would have assumed that as a career politician he would know that we already are. Ireland is signed up to the Common Security and Defence Policy, as well as PESCO, which he even refers to.
6. Legally limiting our involvement with EU defense to strictly non-nuclear conflicts is … childish. If the EU needs to go to war to defend itself, we’re pretty much already there.
7. Neutrality is not a ‘taboo subject’ – it’s just a settled issue. Throwing around phrases like ‘taboo subject’ is a bit like the old ‘just asking questions’ chestnut. We’re a NATO-aligned nation, tend to be neutral in conflicts, and usually only deploy troops under UN jurisdiction to keep the peace. It’s not complicated.