Enda wants to end neutrality

Enda Kenny wants to end Ireland's neutrality policy: LINK.

I'd, under normal circumstances, approve of this. Simply because we're not neutral and because pretending that we are does more harm than good. But what appears in the Independent is very very confused. I'm not sure whether the Independent is at fault here or whether it's Enda. I suspect it's both. The article in question goes to great pains to tell us that all of this has nothing to do with Lisbon, yet more than half of the article is devoted to saying this.

Lisbon aside, both the paper and Enda seem very confused about the nature of Ireland's pseudo-neutrality. It seems to me that they're referring to Ireland's triple lock policy, which in reality, has little or nothing to do with our pseudo-neutrality policy.

On top of all of this, Enda seems to be suggesting that our military should should be able to veto any orders that they're given:

Enda wrote:

I went to Kosovo and saw the troops there myself and they want to be there because they are soldiers and they want to participate in these things...

I can't but help wonder aloud whether Enda feels that the views of our navy would have been relevant when they were deployed to Mayo a few months back.

All in all, very confusing stuff from very confused people. Although, maybe I'm being too kind, as it smells more like propaganda to me.

I think the journalist is straining to make it relevant to Lisbon, although the only connection is its irrelevance.

This is a peculiar article because it is missing some of the links that would make it comprehensible and because it's unclear whether it's a report of an interview, or a report on an interview.

In other words, is the line below from Sheahan or from Kenny? It's not clear. Neither is it clear what the context or relevance of that remark is.

Quote :

Effectively, the EU is now running peacekeeping operations, sub-contracted by the UN.

Usually the Indo can be relied on to dumb things down to be comprehensible to the lowest common commoner, but this article doesn't clarify those great unclarifieds in Irish politics - what is FG's stance on neutrality, exactly (we know what Libertas thinks it is, but not in so many words what FG wants it to be); what is Ireland's stance on neutrality, exactly (link here to what Brian Cowen said in May before the referendum); what will these legal guarantees mean, exactly... and so on ad infinitum.

But, as you say 905, there is nothing new to FG requesting an end to neutrality, but I would be interested to see how such an end, were it to come about, would be compatible with any legal guarantees secured for the successful passing of Lisbon #2.

905 wrote:

I can't see what your problem is Hermes. Kenny is calling for an end to neutrality (such as it is), nothing new there. Seeing as the issue of neutrality is key to many people's concerns about the treaty, he is stressing that his approval of the treaty and his approval of an end to neutrality are not linked at all. Of course you may disagree, but I can't see that it is very confusing.

As for the vetoing of orders, I can't see that in there at all.

I'd like to point out that I think there's an awful lot of opinion masquerading as fact in that post. Your definition of neutrality might differ from that of the state, but simply announcing that we’re not neutral, just because you don’t think we’re neutral, doesn’t make it so. Neither does adding pseudo as a prefix here and there.

Personally, I’d rather see Ireland neutral to any degree. I can’t see how it’s doing more harm than good. The idea of throwing lives and money away on often malicious foreign adventures just to avoid offending the sacred definition of the word neutrality doesn’t make much sense to me.

It's not my definition of neutral that's at issue. The High Court has said that Ireland is not neutral.

Our pseudo-neutrality (sorry you dont like me slapping in the prefix 'neutral'), makes not a blind bit of difference regarding foreign misadventures and body bags. Removing our policy would lay the blame for such acts at the feet of our government. The triple lock mechanism is the relevant issue here, not neutrality or our insult to the idea of it.

The vetoing by soldiers is somewhat tongue in cheek on my part at what Enda's said. The opinions of soldiers should have no bearing whatsoever on their deployment. Enda made this remark to add validity to what he wants. If our soldiers had said otherwise, Enda wouldn't have brought it up. It's a dishonest approach and I was mocking it.

Ibis wrote:

I think the journalist is straining to make it relevant to Lisbon, although the only connection is its irrelevance.

I think that's a fair assessment.

ibis wrote:

I think the journalist is straining to make it relevant to Lisbon, although the only connection is its irrelevance.

I'd be inclined to agree with you on that, ibis.

Quote :

The vetoing by soldiers is somewhat tongue in cheek on my part at what Enda's said. The opinions of soldiers should have no bearing whatsoever on their deployment. Enda made this remark to add validity to what he wants. If our soldiers had said otherwise, Enda wouldn't have brought it up. It's a dishonest approach and I was mocking it.

No, you weren't mocking it, Hermes. You were deliberately interpreting it in such a way that you could mock it.

He brought it up, clearly because he was referring to the fact that engaging in places like Kosovo is what soldiers sign up to do, not because they have any desire to have a public opinion on where they are deployed. I'd suggest, with respect, that the dishonesty is on your part here, Hermes.

Quote :

"I went to Kosovo and saw the troops there myself and they want to be there because they are soldiers and they want to participate in these things," he said.

Kate P wrote:

This is a peculiar article because it is missing some of the links that would make it comprehensible and because it's unclear whether it's a report of an interview, or a report on an interview.

In other words, is the line below from Sheahan or from Kenny? It's not clear. Neither is it clear what the context or relevance of that remark is.

Quote :

Effectively, the EU is now running peacekeeping operations, sub-contracted by the UN.

Usually the Indo can be relied on to dumb things down to be comprehensible to the lowest common commoner, but this article doesn't clarify those great unclarifieds in Irish politics - what is FG's stance on neutrality, exactly (we know what Libertas thinks it is, but not in so many words what FG wants it to be); what is Ireland's stance on neutrality, exactly (link here to what Brian Cowen said in May before the referendum); what will these legal guarantees mean, exactly... and so on ad infinitum.

But, as you say 905, there is nothing new to FG requesting an end to neutrality, but I would be interested to see how such an end, were it to come about, would be compatible with any legal guarantees secured for the successful passing of Lisbon #2.

Well, the legal guarantee in Lisbon - the Maastricht clause - would be compatible with whatever position we chose to adopt. It's a very blanket clause.

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

The vetoing by soldiers is somewhat tongue in cheek on my part at what Enda's said. The opinions of soldiers should have no bearing whatsoever on their deployment. Enda made this remark to add validity to what he wants. If our soldiers had said otherwise, Enda wouldn't have brought it up. It's a dishonest approach and I was mocking it.

No, you weren't mocking it, Hermes. You were deliberately interpreting it in such a way that you could mock it.

He brought it up, clearly because he was referring to the fact that engaging in places like Kosovo is what soldiers sign up to do, not because they have any desire to have a public opinion on where they are deployed. I'd suggest, with respect, that the dishonesty is on your part here, Hermes.

Quote :

"I went to Kosovo and saw the troops there myself and they want to be there because they are soldiers and they want to participate in these things," he said.

With respect, I completely disagree. Recruitment is not the issue here at all. Indeed, in the short term of our current government, there have been moves to close barracks. My Mayo comment, in the OP is what I'm getting at here. I wonder if Enda had used opinion from the Navy regarding their deployment in Mayo, stating that it's why folks had wanted to join the forces, would it have sounded either sincere or relevant?

Another way to look at this is the fact that regardless as to the existence of the triple lock mechanism, there is a place for Irish peacekeepers. Thus the incentive for folks to join up remains regardless. There might be more opportunities for the deployment of Irish forces, if the triple lock mechanism didn't exist. Looking at this and contrasting with Enda's statement, we get the idea that abolishing the triple lock would be a good thing because it panders to soldiers wanting to be deployed. A soldier's lot is not to define what's good and what's not, a solder's duty is to serve. I'd humbly suggest that a person wanting to serve his or her country as opposed to someone wanting to see action, is the person we wish to recruit, though I'm sure there is overlap. Enda only gives a toss about the opinions of Irish recruits in this instance because it serves his interests to do so. And indeed we can be pretty sure that Enda didn't talk to each and every one of our recruits in Kosovo. Cynical stuff.

The article isn't very clear, though, is it?

Quote :

Mr Kenny said his party's view on neutrality has not changed at all since he called for a change in the country's military policy position shortly after he became leader.
But he says this has nothing to do with the Lisbon debate, as the new legal guarantee with the treaty shows it will not affect Ireland's neutrality.

and then a few pars further down,

Quote :

"Neutrality is not relevant to this debate on Lisbon because there is a protocol in there from Maastricht, and that will be doubly binding when this one comes through, this declaration here.

To me that indicated those legal guarantees which have been ostensibly secured but whose wording still has to be finalised - and of course given the imprimatur of Sir Gilmore who will not be happy unless the Labour Party has a say in said negotiations.

ibis wrote

Quote :

Well, the legal guarantee in Lisbon - the Maastricht clause - would be compatible with whatever position we chose to adopt. It's a very blanket clause.

Which, in the context of the securing of guarantees outside of Lisbon, begs the question - what's it all about?
...

Hermes wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

The vetoing by soldiers is somewhat tongue in cheek on my part at what Enda's said. The opinions of soldiers should have no bearing whatsoever on their deployment. Enda made this remark to add validity to what he wants. If our soldiers had said otherwise, Enda wouldn't have brought it up. It's a dishonest approach and I was mocking it.

No, you weren't mocking it, Hermes. You were deliberately interpreting it in such a way that you could mock it.

He brought it up, clearly because he was referring to the fact that engaging in places like Kosovo is what soldiers sign up to do, not because they have any desire to have a public opinion on where they are deployed. I'd suggest, with respect, that the dishonesty is on your part here, Hermes.

Quote :

"I went to Kosovo and saw the troops there myself and they want to be there because they are soldiers and they want to participate in these things," he said.

With respect, I completely disagree. Recruitment is not the issue here at all. Indeed, in the short term of our current government, there have been moves to close barracks. My Mayo comment, in the OP is what I'm getting at here. I wonder if Enda had used opinion from the Navy regarding their deployment in Mayo, stating that it's why folks had wanted to join the forces, would it have sounded either sincere or relevant?

Then we shall have to respectfully agree to disagree, that you are interpreting the comment to suit your perspective on Mayo - which was quite clear. It's also quite clear that I'm not commenting on recruitment, but on what drives any individual to sign up for Defence Forces in whatever capacity. In general, their aim is to see the kind of active duty that makes the world a better place in the way that they see the life of a soldier making that possible. Mayo is a red herring.

Quote :

Another way to look at this is the fact that regardless as to the existence of the triple lock mechanism, there is a place for Irish peacekeepers. Thus the incentive for folks to join up remains regardless. There might be more opportunities for the deployment of Irish forces, if the triple lock mechanism didn't exist. Looking at this and contrasting with Enda's statement, we get the idea that abolishing the triple lock would be a good thing because it panders to soldiers wanting to be deployed. A soldier's lot is not to define what's good and what's not, a solder's duty is to serve. I'd humbly suggest that a person wanting to serve his or her country as opposed to someone wanting to see action, is the person we wish to recruit, though I'm sure there is overlap. Enda only gives a toss about the opinions of Irish recruits in this instance because it serves his interests to do so. And indeed we can be pretty sure that Enda didn't talk to each and every one of our recruits in Kosovo. Cynical stuff.

In which case, you'll forgive me for saying that we could easily replace the word 'Enda' with 'Hermes' here in the above lines in bold.

It is you who is suggesting that the soldiers are seeking to define what is good and what's not - the quote from Enda points out exactly what you suggest it doesn't - that soldiers want to be there because they are soldiers and want to participate in these things - in other words, they want to serve.

Kate P wrote:

The article isn't very clear, though, is it?

Quote :

Mr Kenny said his party's view on neutrality has not changed at all since he called for a change in the country's military policy position shortly after he became leader.
But he says this has nothing to do with the Lisbon debate, as the new legal guarantee with the treaty shows it will not affect Ireland's neutrality.

and then a few pars further down,

Quote :

"Neutrality is not relevant to this debate on Lisbon because there is a protocol in there from Maastricht, and that will be doubly binding when this one comes through, this declaration here.

To me that indicated those legal guarantees which have been ostensibly secured but whose wording still has to be finalised - and of course given the imprimatur of Sir Gilmore who will not be happy unless the Labour Party has a say in said negotiations.

ibis wrote

Quote :

Well, the legal guarantee in Lisbon - the Maastricht clause - would be compatible with whatever position we chose to adopt. It's a very blanket clause.

Which, in the context of the securing of guarantees outside of Lisbon, begs the question - what's it all about?
...

If you asking me what the point is of securing guarantees in addition to Lisbon for things already covered in Lisbon - the answer is that the No campaign created the impression that there were no such guarantees in Lisbon, or that the guarantees in Lisbon were worthless, and the new guarantees are to reassure people that what is guaranteed in Lisbon is indeed guaranteed.

If that seems like an immense waste of time and energy...well.

Well I can't argue with the High court if they reckon we aren't neutral. But I still going along with Enda Kenny on neutrality because you disagree with the government position is cutting of your nose to spite you face.

I for one don't think the article was very confusing. I think the subject matter if potentially confusing, but all the well-written articles in the world won't change that. Does anyone know what the Irish Times makes of the story?

It's a very good topic though, my thanks to Hermes for bringing it up.

I don't think the Irish Times is carrying that particular story - because Sheahan comments that it's an interview with the Irish Independent. However, they may add to it for Monday or seek clarification of some kind. The Times is inclined to give greater length to articles and reports than the Indo does and may in that case do a better job of it.

It is indeed a good topic.

Methinks this could become quite circular. I'll make one last point and then drop it, as you said, we can agree to disagree (i'm not trying to prevent you from responding).

If a soldier wants to serve, then he or she will do as his country orders. That point remains a constant regardless as to whether soldiers like being deployed in Kosovo or not. Indeed it remains a constant regardless as to whether the triple lock exists or not. I personally don't give a toss as to the opinions of soldiers (in a political sense anyway), they do not come up with, or enact policy, they'll simply do as they're told. On the other hand, I do care for general opinion, and soldiers definitely form a subset of this group. I personally dislike the deployment to Kosovo and indeed a lot of other deployments. I'm pretty sure that Enda would not use my opinion to justify his position, but am confident that he would if it happened to coincide with his own. This is simply Enda pointing to a very small subset of Irish people and generalising their views to appear to be something bigger than it is and indeed to be more important than it is. It's akin to Mary Harney suggesting that executives of the HSE, being happy in their jobs, is justification for closing emergency rooms and scaling down healthcare.

And we resume the places we had at the beginning of this particular dance.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJv5qLsLYoo

( I can't embed here... it screws up the page layout, this will have to do.)

Kate P wrote:

And we resume the places we had at the beginning of this particular dance.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJv5qLsLYoo

( I can't embed here... it screws up the page layout, this will have to do.)

I love that song!

I suppose I should say once again, as my side track into the persona of Enda might have confused the issue, that I'm in favour of tearing up our neutrality policy (if anyone can find where it's written down) and of abolishing the triple lock mechanism.

Strange position for a leftie no?

Enda wrote:I went to Kosovo and saw the troops there myself and they want to be there because they are soldiers and they want to participate in these things...


This just shows how stupid Enda Kenny is. Is this eejit the alternative to bollox from Clara. The country is going down the drain and this fool is talking about the military.

The Irish Army needs to be scrapped immediately, what a waste of money

Try as they might, they will not convince people that this has nothing to do with Lisbon, especially once Libertas and the Shinners pick up on it. (Remember the Lucinda billboard?). So, as much as I agree with him (and I do, on this point anyway), it's a rather bad time to bring it up.

youngdan wrote:

Enda wrote:I went to Kosovo and saw the troops there myself and they want to be there because they are soldiers and they want to participate in these things...


This just shows how stupid Enda Kenny is. Is this eejit the alternative to bollox from Clara. The country is going down the drain and this fool is talking about the military.

The Irish Army needs to be scrapped immediately, what a waste of money

Nothing compared to the US army you all love so much over there!

You are jumping to conclusions.

Which conclusions?

You seem to think that I love the fact that the US Army is in say Korea or Iraq. The subject is the Irish Army. What a waste of space they are.

The other topic is the stupidity of what Kenny said. He sounds like a moron if ever I heard one.

I can see the posters now:

Irish Neutrality will last until the Enda Time.

Ollie out, Stan in.