Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ Since the formation of the Irish 26 County Free State back in 1922 the state has held a position of military neutrality. 

This was brought to a head during the Second World War – the Emergency – as the government of Eamon de Valera took a neutral stance. Today that neutrality is looking increasingly under strain, not through or from external pressure, but by the government in Dail Eireann. The Fine Gael faction of this administration appears to be leading the way for a “rethink” over the state's military neutrality position in foreign policy. Some of their arguments are ridiculous to say the least, talk about delusions of grandeur! Citing war in the Ukraine as a possible reason for ending the 26 County state's military neutrality is the most opportune of half reasons which a child could have more imagination over in search of a reason! Simon Coveney and Leo Varadkar appear the lead proponents of this “rethink”.

Russia is, according to western reports, bombing civilian targets purposely in the Ukraine and this is supposed to shock us. What difference is there between what Russia are reportedly doing and the actions of Arthur “Bomber” Harris, the head of Bomber Command, when he ordered the “carpet bombing, which is purposely indiscriminate, of Hamburg and Dresden in WWII, or the Luftwaffe bombing Coventry, Manchester, Liverpool, York and London during the same war? Couple this with General Curtis LeMay purposely bombing civilians in Japan and we begin to see a picture of arse creeping hypocrisy. In fact, “Bomber” Harris never tried to excuse the bombing of civilians, who he considered vital parts of Germany's war machine, therefore viable targets. The 26 County Government never once criticise the USA bombing civilians in Iraq or Saudi Arabia doing the same in Yemen, but because the “Big Boys” of the US and Britain are anti-Russian the government here have to go well over the top in their support for the Ukraine and hatred of Russia. 

This then brings us to Irish Foreign Policy regarding military neutrality. Varadkar is often saying Ireland “is not neutral” in the war in Ukraine, he speaks for himself, not me and many others who are neutral because Ukraine are no angels. Not to go down the avenue of the rights and wrongs of Russia’s invasion - that old chestnut was becoming boring - but 26 county military neutrality being in danger is a subject worth looking at.

There are, what could be described as, three stances of 26 county military neutrality. I must stress military neutrality because quite plainly the government are not politically neutral when it comes to the Ukraine. The first stance was/is the position they took during the Second World War – the Emergency – chiefly due to external threats, particularly from Nazi Germany, and internal divisions. For example, there were those inside Dail Eireann, and outside, who supported the Third Reich led Axis forces and that ideology. Oliver J. Flannagan’s 1943 anti-Semitic speech in the Dail comes to mind as being one of those who had sympathies towards the policies adopted by Berlin at the time. 

The austere face of this stance lingers on to this day, albeit in less a dangerous international political arena. The 26- county state remains outside formal mutual defence pacts, including NATO, thereby retaining its autonomy on military decisions and avoiding becoming involved in conflicts which it has no interest in becoming embroiled in. Could this long held position be in danger in the post-modern world? Could it be used as a kind of negotiating chip in a bigger picture such as an end to partition? This was exactly what was offered by Winston Churchill to Eamon de Valera during WWII and rejected by the latter. Perhaps de Valera could see Nazi Germany posed a much bigger threat to the state than did partition and military neutrality was not worth swapping with the British to abandon this position. At the time a Nazi victory looked likely so the decision by de Valera was what could be described as a hope Hitler would recognise the state's neutrality, which was highly unlikely as Operation Green had already been written as part or extension of Operation Sea Lion which was the invasion of Great Britain, and if Green was annexed in practice, Ireland.

It was perhaps for this reason the de Valera Government though officially neutral adopted a pro-ally stance during the “Emergency”. Allied pilots coming down over the 26 counties would be shipped back to the north across the border to rejoin their units and fly again. Luftwaffe Pilots, on the other hand, were interned at the Curragh in County Kildare for the duration of the war. De Valera also sent fire units from Dublin to assist putting out blazes in Belfast caused by German bombing, which Hitler fumed over as a breach of neutrality. As the Free State claimed sovereignty over the whole of the island of Ireland under the 1937 constitution de Valera was able to circumvent this claim he had breached neutrality which, technically, he was correct. No neutrality had been breached because, according to said constitution, Belfast belonged to the Dublin Governments territory.

The second face of military neutrality is based very much on sovereignty and what an end to military neutrality might mean for this sovereignty. As defence was very much part of the criteria of nation statehood should this neutrality be dropped would it make the state too dependent on others for defence? This is unlikely as many small countries are part of larger blocs and alliances, Iceland for example, is a member of NATO. Defence, with the rise of the bigger blocs like the EU is not as important to the criteria of nation statehood as perhaps it once was. There is another argument against this particular stance of maintaining military neutrality, and that is the state, arguably, are already in breach of such neutrality. The armed forces of the United States regularly use Shannon Airport for refuelling, stopovers, and resting on their way to commit acts of violence in some obscure distant land which often places the reported Russian activities in Ukraine into the shadows. This stance on military neutrality is the one, we are told, which has the backing of the public. It is maintained with public support due to concerns over how it would encroach on sovereignty if it were to be dropped. Well, allowing an aggressive foreign force the facilities afforded at Shannon already breaches that neutrality, just as allowing Royal Navy warships during the “Emergency” would have been a clear breach of the wartime neutrality, unless those of the Kriegsmarine (Nazi Germany’s Navy) were allowed the same facilities. This would be like, in modern times, allowing Russian forces the same facility at Shannon as those extended to the USA!! I cannot recall a referendum on the US having use of Shannon so where does the “government by consent” come into it?

The third position on military neutrality is the one hitherto least spoken of, due perhaps to its slightly embarrassing connotations. This stance is the one which allows the 26 counties to remain militarily neutral because defence of its coastal waters and airspace particularly would be allowed to be fought for by others. This then amounts to such state neutrality as being one of hypocrisy. For example, in times of conflict Irish airspace would in all probability be defended by Britain’s Royal Airforce and the coastal waters by the Royal Navy, with the tiny Irish Navy paying a minor role. 

It is this stance which, probably for the first time has been cited by Varadkar and Coveney as a possible reason for the 26 counties to join NATO. It has certainly been used as a reason for updating the Defence Forces, perhaps a more credible reason than joining any alliance. The problem here is, to bring the Defence Forces up to the standards of any possible invader and, therefore, in order to join NATO would cost an astronomical amount. Certainly, a pay increase for defence force personnel is long overdue and an overhaul is necessary. But it must be remembered the Defence Forces are exactly that, defence not offence. This would change should the state join any alliance, including, or particularly NATO. There are far more pressing issues for the state to spend money on than making the Defence Forces NATO-ready. Housing, health, two areas which are in dire straits, would be a far more sensible way of spending money than trying to play big boys wargames. For Varadkar, Coveney and others to cite events in the Ukraine 2,067 miles away as a reason to scrap military neutrality is bordering on hilarious. Russia has no more intentions of invading the 26 counties than I have of applying to become Pope! This is pure scaremongering by these two buffoons, and not very convincing scaremongering at that. If they think this tiny state has any importance to Russia then delusions of grandeur do not even scratch the contemptible surface of such clap-trap.

As a socialist and internationalist, I long for the day when armies, in their present form, are consigned to the dustbin of history. A day when working-class people who have never met go out and slaughter each other on behalf of their indigenous rich and powerful masters, or perhaps more apt for today, a bloc of rich and powerful masters will be in the past. The only armed force an area may need - states would be a governmental administrative centre of the past and would be no more - would possibly be for the purpose of defending the revolution of that country. 

The difficulty with this ideological position is, there is no revolution or, in all probability, not likely to be one. In the meantime, while waiting for the proletarian masses to rise, are the Defence Forces to be allowed to fall into a further state of disrepair? Is morale among the personnel to be allowed to fall to even deeper depths? The feelings of those involved in these forces must be taken into account. While maintaining a credible defence force, meaning exactly that, defence, morale must be maintained and pay increased. They should be given better kit to defend with, say in circumstances where the state is under threat from possible loyalist terrorists, or even the British (not NATO), both unlikely scenarios but just examples of defending. 

This must be balanced against the need for housing and health improvements all of which cost money. Money is there alright, just unevenly distributed. For example, Pallonji Mistry is worth 15 billion USD, Patrick Collinson 11.5 billion, John Dorrance III 2.8 billion and the list of these mega rich Irish citizens goes on and on. 

Now, back in 2008 when the capitalist economic crisis hit, ordinary working-class people were asked, in the “national interests”, to take a pay cut or a pay freeze. This many dutifully did on the understanding they would be reimbursed when the crisis came to an end. Many are still waiting for monies owed, no surprise there! Is it not time for these mega rich multi billionaires, in the “national interest” to give a few bob, say between 500,000 and one billion euro each towards public expenditure including health, housing and paying the Defence Forces personnel a decent living wage and providing better conditions? Or does bailing the state out of trouble, in the “national interest” only apply to working-class people?

26 county military neutrality must be maintained but, at the same time, morale in these forces must also be maintained. An update in equipment in order they can put up a credible defence must also be provided, but not at the expense of cash for housing and health care to meet the needs of our increasingly larger population. The money is out there and all the government need to do, if they dare, is go and get some of it.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent 
Socialist Republican and Marxist

Is The 26 Counties Military Neutrality At Risk?

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ Since the formation of the Irish 26 County Free State back in 1922 the state has held a position of military neutrality. 

This was brought to a head during the Second World War – the Emergency – as the government of Eamon de Valera took a neutral stance. Today that neutrality is looking increasingly under strain, not through or from external pressure, but by the government in Dail Eireann. The Fine Gael faction of this administration appears to be leading the way for a “rethink” over the state's military neutrality position in foreign policy. Some of their arguments are ridiculous to say the least, talk about delusions of grandeur! Citing war in the Ukraine as a possible reason for ending the 26 County state's military neutrality is the most opportune of half reasons which a child could have more imagination over in search of a reason! Simon Coveney and Leo Varadkar appear the lead proponents of this “rethink”.

Russia is, according to western reports, bombing civilian targets purposely in the Ukraine and this is supposed to shock us. What difference is there between what Russia are reportedly doing and the actions of Arthur “Bomber” Harris, the head of Bomber Command, when he ordered the “carpet bombing, which is purposely indiscriminate, of Hamburg and Dresden in WWII, or the Luftwaffe bombing Coventry, Manchester, Liverpool, York and London during the same war? Couple this with General Curtis LeMay purposely bombing civilians in Japan and we begin to see a picture of arse creeping hypocrisy. In fact, “Bomber” Harris never tried to excuse the bombing of civilians, who he considered vital parts of Germany's war machine, therefore viable targets. The 26 County Government never once criticise the USA bombing civilians in Iraq or Saudi Arabia doing the same in Yemen, but because the “Big Boys” of the US and Britain are anti-Russian the government here have to go well over the top in their support for the Ukraine and hatred of Russia. 

This then brings us to Irish Foreign Policy regarding military neutrality. Varadkar is often saying Ireland “is not neutral” in the war in Ukraine, he speaks for himself, not me and many others who are neutral because Ukraine are no angels. Not to go down the avenue of the rights and wrongs of Russia’s invasion - that old chestnut was becoming boring - but 26 county military neutrality being in danger is a subject worth looking at.

There are, what could be described as, three stances of 26 county military neutrality. I must stress military neutrality because quite plainly the government are not politically neutral when it comes to the Ukraine. The first stance was/is the position they took during the Second World War – the Emergency – chiefly due to external threats, particularly from Nazi Germany, and internal divisions. For example, there were those inside Dail Eireann, and outside, who supported the Third Reich led Axis forces and that ideology. Oliver J. Flannagan’s 1943 anti-Semitic speech in the Dail comes to mind as being one of those who had sympathies towards the policies adopted by Berlin at the time. 

The austere face of this stance lingers on to this day, albeit in less a dangerous international political arena. The 26- county state remains outside formal mutual defence pacts, including NATO, thereby retaining its autonomy on military decisions and avoiding becoming involved in conflicts which it has no interest in becoming embroiled in. Could this long held position be in danger in the post-modern world? Could it be used as a kind of negotiating chip in a bigger picture such as an end to partition? This was exactly what was offered by Winston Churchill to Eamon de Valera during WWII and rejected by the latter. Perhaps de Valera could see Nazi Germany posed a much bigger threat to the state than did partition and military neutrality was not worth swapping with the British to abandon this position. At the time a Nazi victory looked likely so the decision by de Valera was what could be described as a hope Hitler would recognise the state's neutrality, which was highly unlikely as Operation Green had already been written as part or extension of Operation Sea Lion which was the invasion of Great Britain, and if Green was annexed in practice, Ireland.

It was perhaps for this reason the de Valera Government though officially neutral adopted a pro-ally stance during the “Emergency”. Allied pilots coming down over the 26 counties would be shipped back to the north across the border to rejoin their units and fly again. Luftwaffe Pilots, on the other hand, were interned at the Curragh in County Kildare for the duration of the war. De Valera also sent fire units from Dublin to assist putting out blazes in Belfast caused by German bombing, which Hitler fumed over as a breach of neutrality. As the Free State claimed sovereignty over the whole of the island of Ireland under the 1937 constitution de Valera was able to circumvent this claim he had breached neutrality which, technically, he was correct. No neutrality had been breached because, according to said constitution, Belfast belonged to the Dublin Governments territory.

The second face of military neutrality is based very much on sovereignty and what an end to military neutrality might mean for this sovereignty. As defence was very much part of the criteria of nation statehood should this neutrality be dropped would it make the state too dependent on others for defence? This is unlikely as many small countries are part of larger blocs and alliances, Iceland for example, is a member of NATO. Defence, with the rise of the bigger blocs like the EU is not as important to the criteria of nation statehood as perhaps it once was. There is another argument against this particular stance of maintaining military neutrality, and that is the state, arguably, are already in breach of such neutrality. The armed forces of the United States regularly use Shannon Airport for refuelling, stopovers, and resting on their way to commit acts of violence in some obscure distant land which often places the reported Russian activities in Ukraine into the shadows. This stance on military neutrality is the one, we are told, which has the backing of the public. It is maintained with public support due to concerns over how it would encroach on sovereignty if it were to be dropped. Well, allowing an aggressive foreign force the facilities afforded at Shannon already breaches that neutrality, just as allowing Royal Navy warships during the “Emergency” would have been a clear breach of the wartime neutrality, unless those of the Kriegsmarine (Nazi Germany’s Navy) were allowed the same facilities. This would be like, in modern times, allowing Russian forces the same facility at Shannon as those extended to the USA!! I cannot recall a referendum on the US having use of Shannon so where does the “government by consent” come into it?

The third position on military neutrality is the one hitherto least spoken of, due perhaps to its slightly embarrassing connotations. This stance is the one which allows the 26 counties to remain militarily neutral because defence of its coastal waters and airspace particularly would be allowed to be fought for by others. This then amounts to such state neutrality as being one of hypocrisy. For example, in times of conflict Irish airspace would in all probability be defended by Britain’s Royal Airforce and the coastal waters by the Royal Navy, with the tiny Irish Navy paying a minor role. 

It is this stance which, probably for the first time has been cited by Varadkar and Coveney as a possible reason for the 26 counties to join NATO. It has certainly been used as a reason for updating the Defence Forces, perhaps a more credible reason than joining any alliance. The problem here is, to bring the Defence Forces up to the standards of any possible invader and, therefore, in order to join NATO would cost an astronomical amount. Certainly, a pay increase for defence force personnel is long overdue and an overhaul is necessary. But it must be remembered the Defence Forces are exactly that, defence not offence. This would change should the state join any alliance, including, or particularly NATO. There are far more pressing issues for the state to spend money on than making the Defence Forces NATO-ready. Housing, health, two areas which are in dire straits, would be a far more sensible way of spending money than trying to play big boys wargames. For Varadkar, Coveney and others to cite events in the Ukraine 2,067 miles away as a reason to scrap military neutrality is bordering on hilarious. Russia has no more intentions of invading the 26 counties than I have of applying to become Pope! This is pure scaremongering by these two buffoons, and not very convincing scaremongering at that. If they think this tiny state has any importance to Russia then delusions of grandeur do not even scratch the contemptible surface of such clap-trap.

As a socialist and internationalist, I long for the day when armies, in their present form, are consigned to the dustbin of history. A day when working-class people who have never met go out and slaughter each other on behalf of their indigenous rich and powerful masters, or perhaps more apt for today, a bloc of rich and powerful masters will be in the past. The only armed force an area may need - states would be a governmental administrative centre of the past and would be no more - would possibly be for the purpose of defending the revolution of that country. 

The difficulty with this ideological position is, there is no revolution or, in all probability, not likely to be one. In the meantime, while waiting for the proletarian masses to rise, are the Defence Forces to be allowed to fall into a further state of disrepair? Is morale among the personnel to be allowed to fall to even deeper depths? The feelings of those involved in these forces must be taken into account. While maintaining a credible defence force, meaning exactly that, defence, morale must be maintained and pay increased. They should be given better kit to defend with, say in circumstances where the state is under threat from possible loyalist terrorists, or even the British (not NATO), both unlikely scenarios but just examples of defending. 

This must be balanced against the need for housing and health improvements all of which cost money. Money is there alright, just unevenly distributed. For example, Pallonji Mistry is worth 15 billion USD, Patrick Collinson 11.5 billion, John Dorrance III 2.8 billion and the list of these mega rich Irish citizens goes on and on. 

Now, back in 2008 when the capitalist economic crisis hit, ordinary working-class people were asked, in the “national interests”, to take a pay cut or a pay freeze. This many dutifully did on the understanding they would be reimbursed when the crisis came to an end. Many are still waiting for monies owed, no surprise there! Is it not time for these mega rich multi billionaires, in the “national interest” to give a few bob, say between 500,000 and one billion euro each towards public expenditure including health, housing and paying the Defence Forces personnel a decent living wage and providing better conditions? Or does bailing the state out of trouble, in the “national interest” only apply to working-class people?

26 county military neutrality must be maintained but, at the same time, morale in these forces must also be maintained. An update in equipment in order they can put up a credible defence must also be provided, but not at the expense of cash for housing and health care to meet the needs of our increasingly larger population. The money is out there and all the government need to do, if they dare, is go and get some of it.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent 
Socialist Republican and Marxist

20 comments:

  1. I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine has increased the odds in favour of Ireland joining NATO. Irish society doesn't feel under any threat from Russia but it will see Russia as an aggressive force in a way that it does not see NATO as one or at least not to the same extent. I would hope it is put to a referendum rather than let it be a decision of the political class.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree Anthony, after all does not stance number two claim it has the "backing of the people"? Except the pro NATO body are not citing stance two, but the hitherto seldom spoke of stance three. This is important and I, like you, would hope for a referendum, including the voice of Defence Forces personell.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. do you think the Defence Forces personnel would oppose NATO? Institutions tend to seek out expanded roles.

      Delete
  3. I agree that any realignment of the Republic's military neutrality should be put to a referendum. In practice though there is little that the Republic could realistically contribute to NATO should it join. It should continue itd participation in UN brokered peace keeping missions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't worry....if they put it to a referendum they will get the desired result as the tools of the State have it down to a tee as to how to manipulate the public thinking I.e you only have to look at the gobshites waving blue and yellow flags as proof of that. P.s Not to be confused with Tipperary supporters of course cos they are just great!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mick O Perhaps "the gobshites waving blue and yellow flags" identify with the people of an independent, democratic nation resisting the unprovoked invasion of their country by a larger imperialist neighbour.

      Delete
  5. I don't know Anthony, the officers probably not, I think they'd relish it, but the rank and file who'll be used as cannon fodder, if they are ever aked, may take a different approach. On the other hand they may feel it would be some kind of adventure, giving them a sense of purpose having never been involved in aggressive action since the Civil War. I'm sure you, myself and many others in various countries could assure them war, of any description, is not an adventure. It is not the school playground using immitation weapons, and they would be involved in conflicts not for the defence of Ireland, but the prestige of the USA and their immediate subbordinates, Britain, France, Italy and Poland etc in NATO. If they were to be asked the question in this kind of language the answer from the rank and file would be an emphatic no. The question, if it were to be put to the ordinary service men amd women would not be framed in this language. It would no doubt glorify the role of NATO, never once outlining the realities. A bit like Kitcheners WW1 recruitment poster, "your country needs you" or the other load of bollocks after the sinking of the Lusitania, "I'll come too" showing a man in khaki followed by a young Irish lad to go to the slaughter in Flaunders.

    Caoimhin O'Muaile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From my observations of these type of bodies the grassroots imbibe the ethos of the institution. I doubt they will think being part of NATO is being part of an aggressive body. They are more likely to see it as a defensive shield that offers protection against the type of aggressive war waged by Russia. And Putin has served the NATO appetizer up on a silver plate. The message is deceptively simple but will work - if you don't want your society subject to external attack, join NATO.
      But Barry is right - what seriously can Ireland bring to NATO?

      Delete
    2. "But Barry is right - what seriously can Ireland bring to NATO?"

      Don't forget that at it's core NATO is a defense industry. There's a reason why the big tech companies use the island North and South, there's a skilled workforce already in place and a major hub for the physical Internet on a global scale. I've little doubt that the Rep's neutrality will go, especially when hefty contracts get handed out and commitment to spend % of GDP on Defense/NATO commitments.

      Besides there's few finer soldiers than us lot Gael and Planter, we've got good at knocking the shite out of each other it's only fair someone else has a go! lol

      Delete
    3. Steve - good points but that seems that NATO could bring more to Ireland than the other way around. The neutrality will go - Putin has almost guaranteed that.

      Delete
  6. Is there anything Putin is not to be blamed for? Remember, bad as he, Putin, is and contrary to popular thought, the sun does not shine out of Zelenskys arse either.

    As for skilled workers, there are a few precision skilled jobs left, but automation does much of the work. The huge contracts and shity low paid jobs would be heaven for the international exploiters of labour, as well as our own greedy cunts, called capitalists.

    As is known, I have an open mind on the Ukraine situation, but in my local shop a Ukrainian refugee rekons; "there is no war in most of the Ukraine". In the east yes but not in the rest of the country. I neither believe or disbelieve this account, but I certainly do not believe western media versions. But as he is from there, so he said, his account is hard to disprove.

    As for Russia being a threat to Ireland, never heard such fantasising. Nazi Germany was a serious threat, yet many
    Irish people try to deny this. This minority claim, as they consider themselves republican, which in my view they are anything but, "if Hitler had won we'd be rid of the Brits" which may have been true. The replacement would have been ten fold worse, with connacht earmarked as a mass graveyard.

    Everybody appears to want NATO membership, why not call a spade a spade they all want a piece of Russia and has been the case since Napoleonic times.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is lots of stuff Putin does not get blamed for. He is not blamed for spreading socialist or progressive ideas!

      Once Zelensky was supporting the bombing of Gaza there was never going to be much sympathy for him from me. But the matter should not be explained away in terms of two personalities at odds. Russia has waged a war of aggression against its neighbour. That is the determining factor.

      Nor is it about countries wanting a piece of Russia - even if that sentiment exists at strategic level. It will be voted over the line in most countries that opt for it because of a view that it is safer to be in NATO than out. The Left still has a chance to block it but it needs to win a war of ideas.
      Unfortunately, for us, the Russian naval exercises off the coast prior to the war on Ukraine will probably acquire added significance and strengthen the pro NATO lobby.

      That the war leaves most of Ukraine untouched is of little value to discussion when much of the USSR was left untouched by the Nazi invasion. When Stalin was considering trading off Ukraine and other regions post Barbarossa, one of his diplomates made the point that there was no logic in it. The USSR was too big for Germany to occupy and Stalin would win in the end.

      Have not heard it said by republicans that had Hitler won Ireland would be rid of the Brits. It is the sort of sentiment that probably exists on the far right. There was a republican lifer from Newry in the cages who was a great Hitler admirer. He had a poster of the bastard on his wall.

      Delete
  7. Either way, join or don't join, there should be a referendum of the people on ending military neutrality in the 26 counties. The question here is, is this a constitutional matter? I don't believe it is, I may be wrong, and it certainly should be. But is it?

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might be right about that - something to chase up. But if not it should be.

      Delete
  8. Mick O is right, the state has already got a gullible, but well meaning, public on the anti-Russian side. The way some are going round it would be thought the blue and yellow of Ukraine is our colours. To be fair the same gullibility is to be found in England.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caoimhin. I wear Ukrainian colours just as I wore Anti-Apartheid colours and, in a different time, would have worn the colours of the Spanish Republic. I support democracy against imperialist aggression in the case of Ukraine; against racism in the case of apartheid South Africa and fascism in the case of Spain. Those of us who know ocf Putin's serial war criminality in Chechnya and in Syria and who have seen on our tv screens the massacres at Bucha and the indiscriminate shelling of apartment blocs will not be patronised as "gullible"

      Delete
    2. Caoimhin - where is the gullibility in people displaying the colours of a country subject to the supreme international war crime? It is as reasonable to brandish Ukrainian colours as it is brandish Palestinian colours as a statement of solidarity with those subjected to appalling assault. At anti Israeli war protests I always wear the Palestinian colours not out of gullible support for Hamas or even Palestinian nationalism: it is a simple statement of solidarity with those being attacked.

      Delete
  9. Anthony, it is at very best ambiguous as to whether a referendum is constitutionaly necessary regardsmilitary neutrality. In favour of a referendum, and the government to all intents and purposes oposse to such democracy, reading between the lines is essential. Forwarned is forarmed.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caoimhin - I don't even know enough about it to be able to claim it is ambiguous. It is something I must look at further. I think it should be put to the people even if at this point I think it might go the way I would not like to see.

      Delete
  10. Just read a piece, an amendment Anthony, which could be inteepreted as a referendum not being neccessary, equally it could be read the other way. I agree with you, it certainly should go to the people regardless of constitutional status and, like you, the result could be in favour of dropping military neutrality which I personally would not like to see.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete