Labour hypocrisy over sovereignty

DeGaulle 2.0

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,994
Website
ga.wikipedia.org
There has been much, entirely justified, criticism of the loss of economic sovereignty involved in the bailout deal. Fine Gael. Labour and Sinn Féin have all made the point that it involves a loss of our independent decision making. We learnt today that we have to produce weekly reports, like misbehaving school-children.

However, there is a particular hyprocisy involved on Labour's part. Labour, along with Fianna Fáil and the Greens, brought in the Triple Lock policy which removes our military sovereignty. The Triple Lock means that if we want to send the Irish Army on a mission abroad, we need to get the approval of the UN Security Council, which means that the British, French, US, Russian and Chinese governments can veto Irish Army deployments abroad. This has already happened, when China prevented the deployment of Irish troops to a peacekeeping mission in the Balkans.

It is hypocritical to criticize the fact that we cannot decide on new economic policies without outside approval but to happily create a situation where we cannot take part in a European peace-keeping mission without outside approval.

Fine Gael wants to remove the Triple Lock policy and re-establish our military sovereignty. Similarly, Fine Gael is entirely consistent in criticising the fact that we have, temporarily at least, lost our economic sovereignty.

Labour on the other hand, is being completely hypocritical in rejecting military sovereignty but wanting economic sovereignty. Why does Labour think it's ok for David Cameron to have a veto over Irish government policy but it's not ok for Ajai Chopra to be able to veto Irish government policy?
 


livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,517
#1 because military sovereignty and economic sovereignty are different things. It is absolutely consistent to hold the view that the Irish Government and only the Irish Government should decide economic policy but to believe that military policy should be subject to additional safeguards. You may well disagree with that view, but it is not a hypocritical stance to take.

#2 subjecting military decision making to the checks of only participating in UN mandated missions is not a loss of sovereignty when it is a voluntary submission to certain checks and balances, which can be altered at any time by the Irish establishment - as such, it's not actually a loss of sovereignty.

#3 you could just as easily suggest that FG are hypocritical because they agreed with ceding sovereignty in SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon, all of which involved some ceding of sovereignty. Like the triple lock, these were voluntary acts which were done to improve our relations in Europe. (for the record, I don't believe that FG are hypocritical...I do believe the OP is hypocritical for calling Labour hypocritical when the triple lock simply applies the same principle as agreement with EU treaties)
 

Hooch

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
1,884
This has already happened, when China prevented the deployment of Irish troops to a peacekeeping mission in the Balkans.
What's your source for this? Google isn't giving me anything.

Aside from that your post is pedantic partisanship, peacekeeping missions need a UN mandate anyway.
 

Tim Johnston

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
5,075
Interesting.

FG may get my vote yet
 

DeGaulle 2.0

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,994
Website
ga.wikipedia.org
#1 because military sovereignty and economic sovereignty are different things. It is absolutely consistent to hold the view that the Irish Government and only the Irish Government should decide economic policy but to believe that military policy should be subject to additional safeguards. You may well disagree with that view, but it is not a hypocritical stance to take.
It is absolutely inconsistent with anything this country has ever stood for to allow the Chinese government to veto what we do with the Irish Army.
#2 subjecting military decision making to the checks of only participating in UN mandated missions is not a loss of sovereignty when it is a voluntary submission to certain checks and balances, which can be altered at any time by the Irish establishment - as such, it's not actually a loss of sovereignty.
China essentially decided that Ireland could not participate in a peace keeping mission in Macedonia, thanks to, among others, the Labour party. It is ridiculous to talk about "checks and balances" where China is concerned.

The idea that we introduce laws to prevent future governments doing something is the sort of childish politics that brought about the abortion referendum disasters. It's even worse, in fact - the abortion referendum people wanted to leave any decision on abortion to the Irish people - the Triple Lock promoters sought to leave the final decision to the ethnic cleansers of Tibet.
#3 you could just as easily suggest that FG are hypocritical because they agreed with ceding sovereignty in SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon, all of which involved some ceding of sovereignty. Like the triple lock, these were voluntary acts which were done to improve our relations in Europe. (for the record, I don't believe that FG are hypocritical...I do believe the OP is hypocritical for calling Labour hypocritical when the triple lock simply applies the same principle as agreement with EU treaties)
Agreements like the SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon are completely different as they involve a number of countries negotiating agreements on an equal basis. The Triple Lock gives power of veto to foreign countries with no corresponding power for Ireland.
 

DeGaulle 2.0

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,994
Website
ga.wikipedia.org
What's your source for this? Google isn't giving me anything.

Aside from that your post is pedantic partisanship, peacekeeping missions need a UN mandate anyway.
The situation with the Macedonian peecekeeping force is well known. Here is a link to a Seanad debate: Seanad Eireann - Volume 178 - 08 December, 2004 - UN Reform.. I never thought I would quote Paschal Mooney.

Why should peacekeeping missions need a UN mandate? Suppose there is trouble in the Hungarian areas of Slovakia and the Slovakian government asks Ireland and other EU countries for peacekeeping troops on a temporary basis. Why should we have to consult anyone else before making our decision?
 

Wednesday

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
354
Website
ceadaoin.blogspot.com
Labour also supported the EU/IMF "bailout" of Greece earlier this year. They didn't seem too concerned about the issue of national sovereignty then.
 

Hooch

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
1,884
Labour also supported the EU/IMF "bailout" of Greece earlier this year. They didn't seem too concerned about the issue of national sovereignty then.
How on earth does offering a bi-lateral loan to another country involve our sovereignty?
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,517
I'll repeat - the Dail subjecting itself to an external check is not a loss of sovereignty when the Dail can merely reassert the right to unitlateral military action if it so desires.
 

oggy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
8,900
Just watching the news, was it a FG TD Gilmore was screaling at today in the Dail on the sovereignty issue ?
 

DeGaulle 2.0

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,994
Website
ga.wikipedia.org
I'll repeat - the Dail subjecting itself to an external check is not a loss of sovereignty when the Dail can merely reassert the right to unitlateral military action if it so desires.
Firstly, that is not true. The Chinese government currently has the power to veto the deployment of the Irish Army abroad and they have used this power in the past. The Irish government was unable to deploy the Irish army in Macedonia because of the Triple Lock. Fact. Allowing another government a unilateral veto over your armed forces with no quid pro quo is not the action of a normal sovereign state.

Secondly, why are Labour people complaining about the loss of economic sovereignty if the Dáil could at any time abandon the bailout deal? Is it a hideous mistake by the Eamon Gilmore and Pat Rabbitte? Will you be writing to them to point out their mistake?

Thirdly, giving the Chinese Communist party the ability to veto your actions is not something any rational person describe as an "external check".

Fourthly, what is the point of the Triple Lock legislation? Are you saying that the Triple Lock legislation was passed just as a joke that they didn't really mean?
 

talkies

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
326
Firstly, that is not true. The Chinese government currently has the power to veto the deployment of the Irish Army abroad and they have used this power in the past. The Irish government was unable to deploy the Irish army in Macedonia because of the Triple Lock. Fact. Allowing another government a unilateral veto over your armed forces with no quid pro quo is not the action of a normal sovereign state.

Secondly, why are Labour people complaining about the loss of economic sovereignty if the Dáil could at any time abandon the bailout deal? Is it a hideous mistake by the Eamon Gilmore and Pat Rabbitte? Will you be writing to them to point out their mistake?

Thirdly, giving the Chinese Communist party the ability to veto your actions is not something any rational person describe as an "external check".

Fourthly, what is the point of the Triple Lock legislation? Are you saying that the Triple Lock legislation was passed just as a joke that they didn't really mean?
They will not be able to "abandon" the bailout....the bailout will proceed on the passing of this budget. Once we buy in on this loan we are beholden to the lenders and any renegotiation of the deal will be within their control. On the passing of this deal our economic sovereignty is indefinitely compromised.

As for Irish Military Missions....can we afford them...ever?

I think we might need the UN to cover our costs.
 
Last edited:

Luke McFadden

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
30
We've had varying levels of independence from Grattan's parliment in College Green in 1800 to the first Free State administration of Cosgrave, Irish-born politicians with some level of democratic mandate behind them. But the biggest strategic decisions lay with the British government. Only until Dev's First government in 1932 did we begin putting a bit of blue sky between us and the British government's will. In real terms we were only partially independent from 1932 to 1970 when we joined the EEC, as during that time we were almost wholly financially dependent on the UK.

So really, we've never had independence only partial independence and in recent years we are bound up by both E.U and U.N doctrine and like other nations have to toe the line.

The independence referred to in the Dev's constitution and in the 1916 Proclamation is aspirational only, it can never be realised in the world we live in. It is for dreamers and civil servants happy in their jobs. We must go along with all the dictats as that's how our system of economics is constructed, on international terms. Irish independence never really happened. Can't say if that's a good or a bad thing in itself.
 

DeGaulle 2.0

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,994
Website
ga.wikipedia.org
We've had varying levels of independence from Grattan's parliment in College Green in 1800 to the first Free State administration of Cosgrave, Irish-born politicians with some level of democratic mandate behind them. But the biggest strategic decisions lay with the British government. Only until Dev's First government in 1932 did we begin putting a bit of blue sky between us and the British government's will. In real terms we were only partially independent from 1932 to 1970 when we joined the EEC, as during that time we were almost wholly financially dependent on the UK.

So really, we've never had independence only partial independence and in recent years we are bound up by both E.U and U.N doctrine and like other nations have to toe the line.

The independence referred to in the Dev's constitution and in the 1916 Proclamation is aspirational only, it can never be realised in the world we live in. It is for dreamers and civil servants happy in their jobs. We must go along with all the dictats as that's how our system of economics is constructed, on international terms. Irish independence never really happened. Can't say if that's a good or a bad thing in itself.
I think that that is an extreme viewpoint. The reality is that no-one would care if we decided to adopt a North Korean strategy and withdrew completely from world affairs.

It is somewhat ironic that our decision to stay out of the second World War was regarded as a statement of our independence, but now, thanks to Labour, FF and the Greens, we would have to ask David Cameron's permission to take part in a similar event.
 

talkies

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
326
I think that that is an extreme viewpoint. The reality is that no-one would care if we decided to adopt a North Korean strategy and withdrew completely from world affairs.

It is somewhat ironic that our decision to stay out of the second World War was regarded as a statement of our independence, but now, thanks to Labour, FF and the Greens, we would have to ask David Cameron's permission to take part in a similar event.
WHAT? It was a statement of our neutrality and done to ward off the threat of invasion. Why in heaven's name would we want to take part in a similar event????????

As a statement of our dependance?
 

Dohville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
2,516
It is somewhat ironic that our decision to stay out of the second World War was regarded as a statement of our independence, but now, thanks to Labour, FF and the Greens, we would have to ask David Cameron's permission to take part in a similar event.
David Cameron has to ask the french before he does anything that requires naval aircraft...
 

DeGaulle 2.0

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,994
Website
ga.wikipedia.org
WHAT? It was a statement of our neutrality and done to ward off the threat of invasion. Why in heaven's name would we want to take part in a similar event????????

As a statement of our dependance?
It should be our decision whether or not to take part in a similar event - not that of David Cameron or the Chinese Communist Party.

The Nobel Peace prize was awarded today to the jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. Why is the Labour party happy to hand over Irish military sovereignty to his jailers but unhappy about handing economic sovereignty over to the IMF/EU?
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top