• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.



120 Irish troops to join EU battle group

Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
10,093
The troops will be part of a 1,500 strong Nordic battle group which will be on stand-by for six months for deployment at five days' notice to trouble spots around the world.
The battle group concept was developed less than a decade ago to enable the EU to respond rapidly to emergencies and disasters.

They can be deployed to help stabilise crisis situations and contribute to humanitarian efforts
RTÉ News: 120 Irish troops to join EU battle group

IMO this does not sit well with the concept of Irish Neutrality. Either we are a neutral nation or not. This issue was brought up in the Lisbon debates as well.
 


Dohville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
2,528
Yawn.

We have been part of the NBG for many many years now.

By the way, what is this irish neutrality of which you speak?
 

Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
10,093
enable the EU to respond rapidly to emergencies and disasters
So the Triple Lock does not apply to them if they had to be deployed to say Kosovo in an emergency?
 

HaHa_U_Fools

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
87
You are aware the Ireland has been part of the Nordic Battle Group since 2008? Even before the first vote on Lisbon.
The Irish government is not noted for shouting their EU "defence" policy from the roof tops in fairness.
 

Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
10,093
Deployment of the Irish element of the Battlegroup on an operational mission will be subject to the requirements of the Triple Lock. “Ireland’s commitment to the Triple Lock is absolute. Irish troops will not be deployed to any conflict zone without the triple lock of UN, Government and Dáil approval,” confirmed Minister O’Dea.
Oh I see, how stupid of me. We are only acting as though we will participate in this.
 

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,550
If only there was some way to search the internet...

Department of Defence - Press Releases
Which is complete ************************e.

Seriously can we even argue that we are an Indpendent state, while China, France, the UK, the US and Russia have the power to stop us deploying our armed forces. It really is a joke and we must be the only Indpendent state in the world that does not have total control over what we can do with our armed forces.
 

PES Activist

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
10
Website
campaignforapesprimary.blogspot.com
Err, Rocky, we pretty much have "total control over what we can do with our armed forces", except where it involves their deployment to someone else's country. That's the kind of military restriction I'm happy to live with! It's a pity that the countries you mentioned do not also subject themselves to such a restriction.
 

Grumpy Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
6,090
Err, Rocky, we pretty much have "total control over what we can do with our armed forces", except where it involves their deployment to someone else's country. That's the kind of military restriction I'm happy to live with! It's a pity that the countries you mentioned do not also subject themselves to such a restriction.
The point is that under the ridiculous 'Triple Lock', the US, UK, France, Russia and China can prevent Ireland deploying troops on missions that the government wants to join.

Are you happy that ultimate decision on the deployment of Irish troops is subject to veto in Washington, London, Paris, Moscow and Beijing?

Any such decision should be for the Cabinet and the Dail alone.
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,908
Great, another thread to rattle a few Eurotron cages. No doubt EU directive 4253363234253423454345/AS/22423435232q32323 Sentence 2345234 Paragraph 16 will be raised to illustrate that only in certain circumstances our neutrality will not be guaranteed, such as in a situation of war. Because being neutral during times of peace is such a fantastic luxury to behold.

Where are all the Eurotrons today?
 

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,550
Err, Rocky, we pretty much have "total control over what we can do with our armed forces", except where it involves their deployment to someone else's country. That's the kind of military restriction I'm happy to live with! It's a pity that the countries you mentioned do not also subject themselves to such a restriction.
Very strong argument. So you believe that under no circumstances foreign countries should ever intervene in another? So for example you believe the world was wrong to react when Kuwait got invaded or during the ethic cleansing in Kosovo or in Somalia in the early 90s when probably millions of people were saved from starvation by UN military intervention or during the genocide in Rwanda.

Now in all those cases with the exception of Kosovo it had a UN mandate and there obviously was no real intervention in Rwanda. But of course the US would have reacted had China for example vetoed military action on Kuwait and China or Russia could easily have vetoed Somalia had they a reason to do so.

Germany invading Poland in 1939 could be another example here. Was the UK and France wrong to react? Had the UN existed and Russia been on it, it wouldn't have got a mandate.
 
Last edited:

PES Activist

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
10
Website
campaignforapesprimary.blogspot.com
Very strong argument. So you believe that under no circumstances foreign countries should ever interfere in another? So for example you believe the world was wrong to react when Kuwait got invaded or during the ethic cleansing in Kosovo or in Somalia in the early 90s when probably millions of people were saved from starvation by UN military intervention or during the genocide in Rwanda.

Now in all those cases with the exception of Kosovo it had a UN mandate and there obviously was no intervention in Rwanda. But of course the US would have reacted had China for example vetoed military action on Kuwait and China or Russia could easily have vetoed the other actions.
Hi Rocky and thanks for your response.

I do actually believe that national sovereignty does not mean having carte-blanche to threaten your neighbours or oppress your own people with impunity. As someone who is very supportive of EU integration it's not surprising that I do not think that sovereignty is sacrosanct and can any longer be used for tyrants to hide behind.

However, as I'm sure you appreciate, there is a world of difference between believing in intervention and actually defining the circumstances in which it is legal and appropriate. That's where the UNSC and the Big Five with their permanent vetoes come in.

I agree that the UNSC is a very imperfect vehicle for determining the legality or appropriateness of intervention in the sovereign affairs of another country. However, at this stage it is the best we have and the only international security body with the legitimacy necessary to sanction such intervention. That's a large part of the reason why our own government has written the sanction of the UNSC into our triple-lock arrangements governing the deployment of the Defence Forces overseas. It's far from ideal, but at least provides some certainty in current circumstances.
 

dail usher

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
68
...there is a world of difference between believing in intervention and actually defining the circumstances in which it is legal and appropriate. That's where the UNSC and the Big Five with their permanent vetoes come in.

I agree that the UNSC is a very imperfect vehicle for determining the legality or appropriateness of intervention in the sovereign affairs of another country. However, at this stage it is the best we have and the only international security body with the legitimacy necessary to sanction such intervention. That's a large part of the reason why our own government has written the sanction of the UNSC into our triple-lock arrangements governing the deployment of the Defence Forces overseas. It's far from ideal, but at least provides some certainty in current circumstances.

100% right PES activist - I could not agree with you more. The Triple Lock is about deciding how and where to deploy our Defence Forces under the spirit and principle of multi-lateralism. Rocky & FG argue that we need the power and right to invade or occupy the territory of others unilaterally.

I also hope Eamon Gilmore, Michael D and others in Labour get FG to desist with their attacks on the triple lock (evidenced by Rocky and others on here too) including the most recent salvo from ex Defence minister & current Foreign Affairs spokesman Sean Barrett TD: www.seanbarrett.finegael.ie
 
Last edited:

Grumpy Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
6,090
I could agree with you more.

I also hope Eamon Gilmore, Michael D and others in Labour get FG to desist with their attacks on the triple lock (evidenced by Rocky and others on here too) including the most recent salvo from ex Defence minister & current Foreign Affairs spokesman Sean Barrett TD: www.seanbarrett.finegael.ie
Gilmore will have much more important matters to secure Labour influence on when it comes to a Programme for Government than the Triple Lock - and Michael D will be able to SFA about it.

If he makes that a bottom line, the Blueshirts will extract a very high price elsewhere on something much more important to Labour people. I don't believe that Gilmore or people like Burton, Quinn and Rabbitte are that foolish.

The sooner the FF cute hoor notion of 'neutrality' is abandoned, the better.

It's a pathetic joke at this stage.

And I find it laughable that people who rant about Ireland surrendering her sovereignty to Brussels are quite happy to surrender that same sovereignty over the deployment of Irish troops to the US, UK, France, Russia and China.
 

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,550
Hi Rocky and thanks for your response.

I do actually believe that national sovereignty does not mean having carte-blanche to threaten your neighbours or oppress your own people with impunity. As someone who is very supportive of EU integration it's not surprising that I do not think that sovereignty is sacrosanct and can any longer be used for tyrants to hide behind.

However, as I'm sure you appreciate, there is a world of difference between believing in intervention and actually defining the circumstances in which it is legal and appropriate. That's where the UNSC and the Big Five with their permanent vetoes come in.

I agree that the UNSC is a very imperfect vehicle for determining the legality or appropriateness of intervention in the sovereign affairs of another country. However, at this stage it is the best we have and the only international security body with the legitimacy necessary to sanction such intervention. That's a large part of the reason why our own government has written the sanction of the UNSC into our triple-lock arrangements governing the deployment of the Defence Forces overseas. It's far from ideal, but at least provides some certainty in current circumstances.
But it doesn't provide certainty. All 5 states are completely inconsistent in how they deal with similar actions by different states. It tells states that if you make friends with basically China and Russia you can do whatever you want and even France, the UK and the US aren't perfect here either.

Had NATO not decided to go it alone in 1999, it is impossible to know what would have happened with Kosovo, but I doubt it would have ended up as well as it did. It's a pity that no one cared enough to react unilaterally in Rwanda in 1994. Who knows how many lives would have been saved if one of the big powers had reacted, maybe millons as it may have also prevented the war in the Congo.

Giving the UN should absolute power. To decide what is right or wrong, is asking for trouble and no state beyond Ireland really gives it that power. Other states will argue it should when it suits them, but they will go on to ignore it when it doesn't.

It is a massive impeachment on our sovereignty and that is undeniable.
 

FalseFlag

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
64
I'm delighted for the troops. It gives them a major opportunity to gain valuable experience, and raised morale overall. I wish them well.
 

seanmacc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
1,022
Just slightly off topic, i hear irish Troops are set to rejoin the UN peacekeeping mission in the Lebanon in the next year or so due to the Italians pulling out.

For the lads themselves who can get on the tour its great news for the few bob it earns them so long as things don't kick off there again. Unfortunlatley I don't think the UN battle groups is going to be as popular with them.
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,438
The point is that under the ridiculous 'Triple Lock', the US, UK, France, Russia and China can prevent Ireland deploying troops on missions that the government wants to join.

Are you happy that ultimate decision on the deployment of Irish troops is subject to veto in Washington, London, Paris, Moscow and Beijing?

Any such decision should be for the Cabinet and the Dail alone.
It seems all the most unjustifiable military missions are carried out by like minded people voluntarily banding together to attack some country... So making it so that the only wars we might join are wars in which a highly unusual set of circumstances have to exist (ie China, US etc agreeing) ensures that our foreign military policy is as ethical as possible, which is a good thing.

Having said that we still have to examine things case by case in order to justify them - should even the UN become a tool for the aggressive military actions of a single player on the world stage or for bullying then i would be in favor of removing the triple lock and advocating for total permanent neutrality in all areas.

I most definitely wouldn't trust the Cabinet/Dail with such decisions (especially given the use of Shannon during the Iraq war).
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
Which is complete ************************e.

Seriously can we even argue that we are an Indpendent state, while China, France, the UK, the US and Russia have the power to stop us deploying our armed forces. It really is a joke and we must be the only Indpendent state in the world that does not have total control over what we can do with our armed forces.
Indeed, by insisting on the "triple lock", we abrogate our own independence

Moral cowardice, a hangover from Dev's neutrality

cYp
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top