Our constitution does contain a neutrality principle.

by iosaf Tue Oct 18, 2005 22:26

For once I wasn't having a go at you.

& as often you are wrong yet again.

you said "The declaration then was against official Irish involvement" after suggesting it didn¡'t make sense to ban individuals. Well then Al why are the first lines of the Act of Feb 24th 1937 as follows:-

Spanish Civil War (non-intervention) act 1937

"An act to carry into execution the international obligations of Saorstát eireann in relation to the civil war now being waged in Spain, and to make such provisions as a re nhecessary or expedient for that purpose, and in particular to prohibit citizens of Saorstát eireann from participating in the war".

Now you're the legal eagle, Al. But when I read the words "in particular to prohibit citizens of Saorstát eireann" I read - NO CITIZEN TO GET INVOLVED. & i understand if a citizen got involved they were neglecting their duty as a citizen.

& before you say "oh that was the freestate", you will remember since you studied it in Templemore, that the end of Bunreacht is a complex list of measures to ensure that the same requirements anmd duties of citizens under the Free state existed for Eire.

Thus I feel I have sort of proven that one of the duties of being an Irish citizen in 1937 to 1939 was to be neutral on Spain. And it was the founder of the Gardaí, the european fascist who led a mass breaking of that law and thus subverted our Constitution and Republic at the first hurdle.

by Al Tue Oct 18, 2005 17:01

Iosaf,
I fail to see the point you are making. You seem to be picking an arguement with me where none exists. Once again, I didnt mention 1913 that was a different user. My comments are simple stating the the neutrality people refer to IS NOT in the constitution which is what you are saying. Wheres the arguement? We agree.

As for Spain, it makes no sense to ban individuals from fighting in a foreign war if they so desire. Peoples freedom existed then as it does now. The declaration then was against official Irish involvement. If you so desire you could go to Iraq and join up. It would be a crime but not against Irish neutrality.

You will also note that the commisioner and Blueshirts has been again mentioned by another user, not me. I dont see the reasoning for speaking about them but once again my occupation is being dragged in where it does not belong. Should I ignore the comments and be accused of hiding or answer honestly? I choose to answer.

So here goes: You cannot blame 12000 people in 2005 for what a person did AFTER being axed from his position. I dont see the reasoning for the post. I didnt mention Blueshirts, another user did. I responded pointing out the flaws in the users 'brilliant' beating of me. Nothing more or less. I dont feel any responsibility for his actions anymore than you should feel responsible for the actions of a long dead relative. The Blueshirts have no purpose in this topic so let it go already.

by iosaf Tue Oct 18, 2005 02:39

I write and contribute and comment in 6 languages in over 15 states and some would say 19 countries on a daily basis as part of my volunteer cyber activism and have done for a long time.
& you Al, always seem to coax pointless discussion from me.
The Free state passed in 1937 a law forbidding the expedition of the founder of both Gardaí and the Blueshirts from intervening in the Spanish coup d'etat situation which became the Spanish civil war. An Bunreacht, the constitution of Ireland was not in force at the time.
Since ireland was a constitutent part of the UK of GB and Ireland in 1913, I don't really think anyone can (or did for that matter) see 1913 as the start of Ireland's neutrality.
Ireland's neutrality began with the first act passed by the sovreign parliament. the 1937 act. Since "Eire" did not exist then, but continued to honour that act and spent a lot of money on its commitee every year thereafter, it is "safe" to say it was the first "proof" or "test" of Irish Neutrality.

If you google through the oireachtas archives available at http://www.oireachtas.ie you will find published all figures and debates related to the 1937 act, and the provisioning of Garda and other state uniforms. The figure I quoted above was for the last "war-time" purchase proposed in the Dail by minister Boland in 1940.

You will please note, that all members of the ACA (blueshirts) who went to Spain with Duffy were comitting a crime as also those fewer who fought to defend the spanish republic. They were and those who followed them, "the first subversives". You will also note, that the nature of that crime and the punishment appropriate - "refusing an order by the state of non-intervention" was never discussed. Not to this day. I think as a Garda you might appreciate that.

Ignoring or subverting Neutrality was and is "a crime with no penalty".

One last thing, my name is spent I-o-s-a-f.
not iosef. You get that wrong all the time. I don't write algernon, or albert, or aloysius do I? No.
I get it right. You fk up a little detail like that, you lose the case. & you stay Plod.

by Michael Mon Oct 17, 2005 20:57

Tip: Always try to write your email address in a human readable way, but which would be difficult for a computer program to pick out automatically. Indymedia.ie is a popular website, and so it is unfortunately swept from time to time by software which gathers email addresses for spammers.

So, rather than, say "example@eircom.net";
You could write "example (at) eircom (dot) net" or "example (then an at symbol) eircom (then a dot) net". Be creative! Beat the spammers! :-D

by Seán Ryan Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:08 uselessgits at eircom dot net

Your email bin needs emptying lol. In the meantime here's my email addy.... uselessgits@eircom.net

Hope to speak to you soon.

Seán Ryan

by Phuq Hedd Mon Oct 17, 2005 03:47

QUOTE: "Oh and the Blueshirts didnt form until the 1930's after Duffy was Garda commisioner. In addition they were the following on from the Army Comrades Association which was the anti-treaty side. the Gardai was made up of largely pro-treaty Ex-IRA men. So please explain how the Blushirts were the predecessors of the Gardai."

RESPONSE: Does it matter whether or not they're predecessors as long as there's a huge overlap in membership Al? The first commissioner is a man who, if he were alive today, would be described as an extremist terrorist subsersive. He was also a traitor and rebel to the established authority (the Crown) and used murder and other violence to further his political ends. He topped all that off by supporting one of the most noxious political philosophies (and thereby found himself in indadvertent alignment with his colonial oppressors).

by CG Mon Oct 17, 2005 01:14

That's what I was thinking of.

by Eoin Dubsky Sun Oct 16, 2005 16:25

Neutrality Law (as the extended Law of Nations quotation above shows) is really quite old, and so it shouldn't be that difficult to get your head around.

The current government in Dublin would have us believe that neutrality is not a legal issue, it's just a matter of policy.

They've even gone so far as to say that to assert and enforce Ireland's neutrality -- keeping belligerents out, and if they still come, then intern them -- would be an "aggression". (I kid you not, that's the term Bertie Ahern used when explaining why Ireland would continue to participate in the invasion of Iraq, Dail Eireann, 20 March 2003.)

If that were the case, then I suppose Ireland was committing acts of aggression against the Third Reich when German airmen were interned in the Currah. Likewise, Ireland was committing acts of aggression -- if we follow Bertie's logic -- against the British and Americans.

Ireland was really asking for it, don't you think.

And finally, the Irish Government take pride in the fact that they offered Irish airspace and airfields to Washington for the open-ended period of the war to "bring international terrorists to justice". They made a point of repeating that fact more than a few times in correspondence, and affidavits (my judicial review and Ed Horgan's).

America didn't violate Ireland's neutrality. America didn't bring us into the war. America, American soldiers and American weapons and explosives haven't made Shannon Airport a US airbase and a likely terrorist target. It was Messers Ahern and Cowen, the rest of the Government, and the civil servants who helped them do it.

by JOD Sun Oct 16, 2005 07:05

§ 103. Neutral nations.
NEUTRAL nations are those who, in time of war, do not take any part in the contest, but remain common friends to both parties, without favoring the arms of the one to the prejudice of the other. Here we are to consider the obligations and rights flowing from neutrality.

§ 104. Conduct to be observed by a neutral nation.
In order rightly to understand this question, we must avoid confounding what may lawfully be done by a nation that is free from all engagements, with what she may do if she expects to be treated as perfectly neutral in a war. As long as a neutral nation wishes sccurely to enjoy the advantages of her neutrality, she must in all things show a strict impartiality towards the belligerent powers: for, should she favor one of the parties to the prejudice of the other, she cannot complain of being treated by him as an adherent and confederate of his enemy. Her neutrality would be a fraudulent neutrality, of which no nation will consent to be the dupe. It is sometimes suffered to pass unnoticed, merely for want of ability to resent it; we choose to connive at it, rather than excite a more powerful opposition against us.....

***

§ 192. Protection.
WHEN a nation is not capable of preserving herself from insult and oppression, she may procure the protection of a more powerful state. If she obtains this by only engaging to perform certain articles, as to pay a tribute in return for the safety obtained, — to furnish her protector with troops, — and to embark in all his wars as a joint concern, — but still reserving to herself the right of administering her own government at pleasure, — it is a simple treaty of protection, that does not all derogate from her sovereignty, and differs not from the ordinary treaties of alliance, otherwise than as it creates a difference in the dignity of the contracting parties.

§ 193. Voluntary submission of one nation to another.
But this matter is sometimes carried still farther; and, although a nation is under an obligation to preserve with the utmost care the liberty and independence it inherits from nature, yet when it has not sufficient strength of itself, and feels itself unable to resist its enemies, it may lawfully subject itself to a more powerful nation on certain conditions agreed to by both parties: and the compact or treaty of submission will thenceforward be the measure and rule of the rights of each. For, since the people who enter into subjection resign a right which naturally belongs to them, and transfer it to the other nation, they are perfectly at liberty to annex what conditions they please to this transfer; and the other party, by accepting their submission on this footing, engages to observe religiously all the clauses of the treaty.

§ 194. Several kinds of submission.
This submission may be varied to infinity, according to the will of the contracting parties: it may either leave the inferior nation a part of the sovereignty, restraining it only in certain respects, or it may totally abolish it, so that the superior nation shall become the sovereign of the other, — or, finally, the lesser nation may be incorporated with the greater, in order thenceforward to form with it but one and the same state: and then the citizens of the former will have the same privileges as those with whom they are united. The Roman history furnishes examples of each of these three kinds of submission, — 1. The allies of the Roman people, such as the inhabitants of Latium were for a long time, who, in several respects, depended on Rome, but, in all others, were governed according to their own laws, and by their own magistrates; — 2. The countries reduced to Roman provinces, as Capua, whose inhabitants submitted absolutely to the Romans;1 — 3. The nations to which Rome granted the freedom of the city. In after times the emperors granted that privilege to all the nations subject to the empire, and thus transformed all their subjects into citizens.

§ 195. Right of the citizens when the nation submits to a foreign power.
In the case of a real subjection to a foreign power, the citizens who do not approve this change are not obliged to submit to it: — they ought to be allowed to sell their effects and retire elsewhere. For, my having entered into a society does not oblige me to follow its fate, when it dissolves itself in order to submit to a foreign dominion. I submitted to the society as it then was, to live in that society as the member of a sovereign state, and not in another; I am bound to obey it, while it remains a political society: but, when it divests itself of the quality in order to receive its laws from another state, it breaks the bond of union between its members, and releases them from their obligations.


****

§ 199. How the right of the nation protected is lost by its silence.
But if the nation that is protected, or that has placed itself in subjection on certain conditions, does not resist the encroachments of that power from which it has sought support — if it makes no opposition to them — if it preserves a profound silence, when it might and ought to speak — its patient acquiescence becomes in length of time a tacit consent that legitimates the rights of the usurper. There would be no stability in the affairs of men, and especially in those of nations, if long possession, accompanied by the silence of the persons concerned, did not produce a degree of right. But it must be observed, that silence, in order to show tacit consent, ought to be voluntary. If the inferior nation proves that violence and fear prevented its giving testimonies of its opposition, nothing can be concluded from its silence, which therefore gives no right to the usurper.

by JOD Sun Oct 16, 2005 06:25

The late Lt-Comdt Peter Young wrote that it was Frank Pakenham (Lord Longford) who in his account of the Treaty negotiations quoted first-hand sources that claimed Michael Collins changed the word "neutral" to "free" in a memorandum that proposed Ireland would be a neutral state and Britain Her guarantor of freedom and integrity.

Ireland could not be neutral, because Her ports were in the control of a foreign power and Britain therefore had to guarantee Irish security, as She did in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Treat, which also gave control of the ports to Britain and limited the size of the Irish defence forces to the same proportion of population as the British army ratio.

by Al Sun Oct 16, 2005 04:05

Iosef,
Can you please provide any proof of what you say concerning the uniforms? Can You please provide a link? If so I will of course change my opinion however at this moment in time all you have talked about was a helmet for the defence forces. Not the Gardai or uniforms and have failed to produce any evidence.

My comments concerning the Blueshirts are correct, use your wonderful Wikepedia if you dont believe me and they were made in direct response to another user.

As for Neutrality, I never stated where neutrality was born or when deValera first decided on it. Another user claims 1913, you say 1937 however if neutrality was in the constitution then why pass another law for Spain?

I believe Neutrality as a permanent fixture originated in WW2 for Ireland, I also stated that Neutrality as most people believe it too be, doesnt exist in the constitution. Now perhaps Spain was the seed for Irish neutrality but it was born as a result of WW2.

"The Irish Constitution, unlike, for example, that of Malta, does not enshrine Neutrality in it," and " When World War 2 broke out, the entire Dail, with only one exception, voted to support the policy of Irish Neutrality" (Peace and neutrality alliance website - http://www.pana.ie/idn/neutral.html)

I dont post to insult, I posted my opinions and got rubbish thrown back at me, I have every right to point out lies and mistakes when users post them.

by iosaf Sat Oct 15, 2005 23:24

To be fair to them I'd have to give you a complete or near to complete list of which European countries [=states?] allowed divorce in the given period 1922-1937 (the first neutral act of ireland). & i'm going to. You of course already know about France, England, Scotland, Sweden, Germany (3rd reich) and Holland but it will be a long list...

Anyway earlier in this debate scintilating as it is, I carefully [coz I'm a considered chap] used two "big words". Touching the millenial discussion of those "big words" {"Monophysitist versus Miaphysitistist theological assertion"} was meant by me to tell the careful & keen reader that Bunreacht could not even at its first reading have been thought to apply to "all religions" in the state or its "claimed territory" at that time.
The constitution I really do want you know
snigger snigger to re-write with all of you on side
falls @ many of its *firstº hurdles.

There has though been only one officialy atheist state ever ever, and that was Albania and its declaration of such only came after WW2 and even proved to be a wee bit sectarian in application, banning beards (yes beards) for their association with both Orthodox catholicism and Islam. Even at its weirdest stage the French revolution still held "the enlightenment" to be a religion, but they took the question "what is a religion/cult" very seriously.

You'll get your answers.
coz you asked a proper question.

by CG Sat Oct 15, 2005 22:25

Al, I'll get back to your points when I have the energy. I just want to ask iosaf which European countries did allow divorce. I would also like to know which European countries didn't have an official religion. Bearing in mind that Ireland did not, and gave status to all religions in the country at the time.

by iosaf Sat Oct 15, 2005 13:11

You get it wrong all the time. You are incapable of reading others' comments with care, you are incapable of posting opinion beyond hectoring comments. which is why I despair of reading your half-thought comments. You use up space.

All Irish uniforms were supplied by the British from the foundation of the state, and were generally sub-standard.

Irish non-intervention began in 1937 when the sovreign state of Ireland voted to refuse assistance to the sovreign republic of Spain and decided to ignore the coup d'etat which had been launched by the nationalist catholic Franco against the Socialist regime which had just through the first female cabinet minister in history proposed sweeping feminist reforms and abortion on demand.
St Patrick's day had just seen axis powers bombard the city of Barcelona. De Valera was in consultation with RC bishops to write a "catholic and nationalist" constitution. The articles which still provoke debate today were shaped on catholic lines, not on the opposing liberal principles. De Valera did not allow divorce, facilitated the RC orders, smothered feminism.

Ireland chose the fascist rather than the republican model, and that even includes the special position given to the civic guard, which Al is proud of.

Neutrality began for ireland at the Spanish civil war. when Eire decided which side it was on.

Nothing strange, European history saw it as a watershed. That is why Geurnica the painting is in the UN. De Valera was closer to Mussolini and Franco than any other European states. Your constitution chose to enshrine "catholic" and "nationalist" ideas rather than "social" or "republican" ideas.

thats it. bunreacht's neutrality has very little to do with the germans, Lad. sorry, but that's history.

Now I'd be interested in what other readers want from Neutrality now. And what they think it could mean as a non-intervention foreign policy.

by Al Sat Oct 15, 2005 05:16

Oh dear god, 1940. 18 years after the Gardai was formed. There were Garda uniforms before 1940. Secondly, that helmet was never worn by Gardai.

the uniforms were custom made back then, you were given an allowance and material and had a tailor make your uniform for you. then they started issuing uniforms, I dont know when but maybe it was around 1940.

As for the cost, did you pay that? No! So again whats your point?

Its a naive, stupid comment to claim you pay 12000 Gardai. thats like stating you pay for the health service. No you dont, you probable pay marginally higher or lower tax than I do.

Oh and the Blueshirts didnt form until the 1930's after Duffy was Garda commisioner. In addition they were the following on from the Army Comrades Association which was the anti-treaty side. the Gardai was made up of largely pro-treaty Ex-IRA men. So please explain how the Blushirts were the predecessors of the Gardai.

No, to get back to the topic of conversation. Neutrality wasnt born out of any grand ideas of world peace but a reality. We werent in a position to enter into WW2. the British and Americans wanted Ireland to declare war but DeValera declined for a number of reasons.
A, we didnt have the military strenght.
B, The IRA, still a force then, was very much pro-Germany
C, We had forged better links with Germany.
D, It was only 20 years since we had won our independence from England.

He never openly cheered the Germans however by aiding the allies in ways that was not afforded the Germans (however it was easier to think of an innocent explanation for a British ship to crash in Ireland) he did support the war on the allies side.

The next step was the carrot of a unified Ireland if we allowed allied forces to occupy airbases and ports in Ireland. Again this was not enough for Devalera. The reason for rejecting this idea may never be known but its easy to assume allowing British forces back into Ireland would not be a popular move.

If you want, he played both sides.

by iosaf Fri Oct 14, 2005 20:36

But I not only despair of things like the Irish not remembering that they were supplied with german looking sub standard helmets during the war by the british but that "involvement and non-involvement in conflict" in the mid 20th century during the existence of the Irish Free State and Eire was based on the causes of the Spanish Civil War and its projected outcome.

Not a one of you has mentioned it or remembered it or drawn the link between Irish "neutrality" and "constitutional development" and what was going on in Spain. One of the last acts of the Free State was to pass was the Spanish Civil War (Non Intervention) Act, 1937.

Then DeValera's bunreacht kicked in.

By the time we get around to _serious_ debate in Irish history at the prospect of involvement in WW2 in May of 1939, the state recorded £3684 towards the expenses of the Non-Intervention Committee with regard to Spain, and a sum of £3940 for the Irish embassy to the USA.
(Just to put the costs of the sub standard helmets and boots and garda radio in perspective for ye.)

The fact is, Eamon (your thread this)
Irish neutrality is based on the first modern war of european history which saw global powers either act directly or indirectly. That was the Spanish civil war. & the constitution you are writing about owes much to the "constitutionalism" at stake in that war. A sovreign republic was deposed by a coup d'etat and both Germany and Russia and many other powers supplied arms material or soldiers.
Ireland in both "free state" and "eire" form in 1937 forbid intervention in that war or the participation of their citizens, and made very long lists of trade and other restrictions (they were a tariff loving lot) which covered all commerce transport and merchant shipping even trawlers. Yet we know that Irish citizens went, just think about the uniform thing.

the Monophysitist versus Miaphysitistist theological assertion preamble of the constitution and its "trinity" rather than [what is obviously not there] "we the people" also derives from the fundamental confict of ideologies in europe - the spanish civil war.

Now, that hopefully you will all accept that Bunreacht's neutrality was "Franco-esque" rather than Swiss or Swedish and developed as such under the FF&FG regimes subsequent to the creation of the UN.

what do you want "neutrality" to mean?
define your terms and get your history right.

by iosaf Fri Oct 14, 2005 19:53

You see folks, the helmet wasn't german at all.
it was made by Vickers, one of the leading defence corporations in the world today, but at that stage just one of the main out-fitters to the British army.

It looked like the german helmet because the British had confiscated the equipment for making helmets off of the Germans after WW1.

The german helmet was called the "Stahlhelm".
look it up on wikipedia.

A total of 10,021 helmets were made for an Irish Free State standing army of 10,000. The helmets are now used in movies for german ones.

"Intentionally or otherwise, the helmets were made with an inferior quality material. Anyone handling a standard German or Austrian helmet of the Great War period, then handling a Model 27 will easily recognize the difference in weight and feel. The stress lines along the front of the helmet are prominent, and many cracked and became unserviceable during their period of use. One must wonder about motivation, as it had been only a brief period of time since the last British troops left the island. Stranger yet, one must wonder why the Irish Free State was willing to take delivery of helmets that did not meet standards. Although a review of the army’s history reveals a great deal of controversy over the organization. Funding was also a problem during the period."

It was that funding that Boland sought to rectify with his 1940 budget. & in 1941 the delivery was made.

Thus we see that The British gave De Valera's Neutral Eire German looking Helmets.

the Irish Free State army helmet made by the Uniform Fairies in England

by plain clothes fairy Fri Oct 14, 2005 19:40

in 1940 your predecessors in the civic guard rossers flics & cops got new uniforms.
The total cost to the Irish taxpayer in 1940 was £34,000 for "Provision of uniforms, equipment and grants-in-aid for the purchase of boots for members of the former Group “A” of the Local Security Force, now the Local Defence Force.
and the Purchase of wireless apparatus for Gárda headquarters".

Now I presume a sum of £34,000 equal to the salary of a teacher and a nurse a civic guard and two labourers in 1940 was justified by the minister Boland to the Dail. It was a lot of money. They wouldn't just throw it into the sea would they?

Well Al, it was easy. Boland and Aiken had been discussing uniforms for about three years at that stage. & there were a lot more different kinds about back then. Your predecessors the Blueshirts had started the whole craze by the way, and Mr Rahililllily had of course brought the Boer style hat to the Citizen's army and military training to dublin a whole 40 years before.

Now who made those state uniforms 1922-1945?

Was it the unmarried mothers at the magdalene home?
who were the uniform faires of Europe?
Do you really think the germans bid the lowest?

by Al Fri Oct 14, 2005 19:09

And its the taxpayer that paid for your secondary school education so whats your point?

First its terrible that I dont know it and now its terrible that I do, what is it you want fairy?

BTW, Im a taxpayer so can I bitch about everything and claim to pay for everything? Your tax doesnt cover the wages of 1 Garda, 1 nurse, 1 doctor or even 1 teacher. So spare me the tired arrogant "I pay your wages" statement because its naive and foolish not too mention old.

Now, can you respond to any of the points I make in relation to the topic or was the rubbish above all you had?

by plain clothes fairy Fri Oct 14, 2005 14:46

You needn't have become a guard to study the bunreacht, you just say no! to religion at junior cert age and with a letter from your parent(s) you get to study bunreacht in civics class.
I suppose this means the taxpayer is funding remedial secondary level classes "with tests" in Templemore now.

Who else got the german uniforms in Europe?

by Al Fri Oct 14, 2005 14:34

Thanks for that CG but I have read the constitution from cover to cover many times (its a subject with tests and everything in templemore).

Im baffled why you think I was suggesting currying favour with England. I clearly stated "disdain for england" was the reason for siding with germany.

If you dont accept my beliefs concerning our involvement in the war then pick up any leaving cert history book they all state the same reality.

As for german invasion, again where did I say this wasnt allowed for? Both the English and Irish government had plans in place against Operation Emerald however it was to Irelands advantage that the embassador was so close to deValera as he warned Hitler that invasion of Ireland would result in years of conflict and total genocide would be needed to defeat the Irish people.

Operation Emerald (my apologies operation green was not the name) was not a planned total domination of Ireland. It was intended as a means of attacking England.

The reasoning behind removing the German embassador is plainly obvious, he was a German spy. All other German forces were interned. This was proven time and time again. I once again must point you in the direction of any history book.

IN addition, Shannon today was not the first occasion that military forces used Irish space. This happened in WW2 as well.

As for the military and Garda uniforms, if the british and Americans wouldnt supply us then where did they come from? the uniform fairies?

Sidenote: the IRA favoured and attempted to facilitate a German invasion, they even stated they would fight a British invasion but would support a German.

by historian Fri Oct 14, 2005 14:16

The reality of neutrality
by CG Friday, Oct 14 2005, 1:32am

Absolute rubbish. Neutrality ideas did emerge as a means of asserting Irish independence. However, post-1948 when the Irish state was firmly established, an internationally recognised republic, Irish neutrality became merely a bargaining chip.

This has been borne out by the opening of government archives in Ireland, the UK and US. When the subject came up of Ireland joining a defensive alliance like NATO, this was declined and the Irish government said it was due to the 6 counties partition issue. On record: The Irish government actually suggested to the US a bilateral defense agreement, avoiding NATO due to partition. The US told them to piss off - the UK was a key defence partner and would not be offended like that. Also small nations like Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg were expected to be in NATO, not negotiate on an individual basis.

Neutrality & disarmament policies of the 1930s were seen as having given the Nazis a free hand to invade smaller countries.

Also, while Dev's government presented a public face of impartial neutrality, in private Irish Army intelligance had very very close links with the British, and later Americans.

by puzzled Fri Oct 14, 2005 13:41

I have read this thread and all the comments, and i have no clear idea of what Irish neutrality is, was, will be, or why we ever had it. I've just read many reasons and theories. The Boer war being one of the most historically interesting. Surely noteworthy that one of the best trained and most psychotic of the 1916 crew (rahililliy) was a Boer veteran on the afrikaan side.
& most of all, what puzzles me is the constant repetition by Eamon of this line "we the people".
Who are those people? The constitution wasn't written by "the people". It was written by De Valera in consultation. Was it even voted upon article by article after an election with its introduction as a manifesto issue? Was it ever put to referendum?

by Seán Ryan Fri Oct 14, 2005 03:33

Thank you for your thoughts and comments, especially you BP. I shall be in touch with you before the weekend has finished to take you up on your offer.

I wish to address one of the later posts and the concept that neutrality is an exercise in fence sitting.

Imagine this scenario: You support Iraq and let's pretend I support the war machine. Either of us has the option to leave our native country and participate in the "war" with either side. However both of us might believe in the pacific settlement of disputes. What if our country chooses a side? One of us is immediately seen as an enemy of the state. Our constitution is unique in that it sees the primacy of the individual and his rights as opposed to seeing the people as having primacy. (See my quote, to follow shortly.)To be other than neutral (the country that is) is to invite a state of civil war and would be akin to treason. No individual is neutral, but the group must be, otherwise what is termed as "reasonable" and "just" may be lost.

Now equate the complexity of the above with the simple fact that our government cannot arrange a simple bus table in this country, our health service is an optical illusion, our culture is dying and being replaced by the pre-packed consumer lifestyle where herds of consumers herd together to chew the cud. If one compares these, the complexity of neutrality and the stupidity and "inefficiency" of our government, it is hard to imagine this very same government judging the rights and wrongs of any foreign problems, never mind who's right and wrong during open warfare. We don't need neutrality because of fence sitting. We need it because our government are stupid and we need it because my opinion must never outweigh yours because of some stupid government mandate, never put the shackles on yourself.

I'll close this time by quoting a passage from the preamble of our constitution.

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations

This is the blueprint of our constitution. Many of our laws and articles themselves in our constitution are repugnant to this blueprint. This does not need interpretation by the High Court simply because, it is written by "We the people" and is therefore open to interpretation by all citizens, you don't need a law degree, a dictionary is more than adequate.

Our neutrality policy, its murky, clandestine beginnings and the fact that it now supports illegal wars is in direct contradiction to both the method of deciding policy and in contradiction with the policy itself when compared with the passage I just quoted.

Think about the passage and try to see how our government could support American genocide. I cannot reason it out and for this reason I believe our government themselves and all their trappings are repugnant to the constitution. I'll freely admit that I could be wrong that's possible , but I cannot see it that I am.

Again many thanks for listening.

Seán Ryan

by CG Fri Oct 14, 2005 02:32

The policy of Irish neutrality originated in opposition to the Boer War, which as I recall also involved a murderous empire who used concentration camps. In 1913, Roger Casement argued that the purpose of the Irish Volunteers should be to keep Ireland neutral. This is where de Valera's neutrality policy had its origins, and his alternative document to the treaty stipulated that Ireland should remain neutral in any wars involving England as a guarantee that Ireland would not be used as a base to attack England, the English using the fear of being attacked from Ireland as an argument against a separate Irish Republic. It was England, of course, who chose to reject this offer. If I remember correctly, an alternative to the name 'Irish Free State' was considered, and this was 'Neutral Irish State'. (I can't give a source on that, I'm afraid.)

They also chose to reject de Valera's offer to subordinate Irish troops to British command in a League of Nations force to protect Abysinnia against the Italian invasion in 1936. England were foremost in recommending that there should be no military sanctions against Italy. Many consider that this - the failure to protect a League member against an imperialist aggressor - was the crucial point at which Europe was impelled towards war, and at which Hitler realised that he could get away with anything. It was at this point that de Valera took ireland out of the League, saying that larger nations could not be trusted to aid smaller nations, and that small nations would have to look to their own resources.

Al, your points are confused and confusing. If Ireland were merely trying to curry favour with England, neutrality need not have been chosen - we could have gone straight into the war. However, if we had been at war with Germany, Germany would have been able to invade at once. Neutrality gave us a chance, and time to group and prepare for invasion. Ireland's army supplied by Germany? Where did you get that? It's certainly true that England and the U.S. refused to sell us arms with which to protect ourselves. It's not true that an invasion from Germany was not anticipated or prepared for because it was - but an invasion from Britain was thought far more likely. Churchill refused the proposals of the Special Operations Executive to co-operate with the Irish government in the invasion of Ireland by Germany, and instead ordered that Ireland should be doused with poison gas in that event. After all, he had done it to 'recalcitrant Arabs'.

Do you think that a neutral country should order ambassadors out of the country because another country says so? Strange. Your understanding of the Constitution is so eccentric as to make me suspect that you have never read it. No, it doesn't allow wife-beating or stipulate that everyone should be Catholic or outlaw contraception. In fact, a clause on the privacy of the family was the reason contraception was legalised in the first place! It was also the first European constitution which successfully incorporated a human rights clause. Many people now argue that certain sections should be amended, but not eliminated, because while there are faulty and outdated aspects, they are not as bad as report would have them.
Have a look at the Constitution and then we'll talk.

by Michael Thu Oct 13, 2005 19:35

The Iraq war was/is an act of aggression -- an illegal war.

Iraq, A full member of the United Nations -- our neighbour in the UN General Assembly -- was attacked by a group of other countries (led by the US and UK). Many thousands of people have been killed in that invasion and occupation.

It's hardly controversial even. It's armed robbery and mass murder in broad daylight, on your TV, in the newspapers, and via your local airfield.

Neutrality is a middle ground, by definition. But is it right to take a middle ground between two sides, when clearly one is the attacker, and the other is being attacked?

by Al Thu Oct 13, 2005 17:24

The constitution does not state that Ireland cannot enter into any war and so it shouldnt considering Eamonn had led an armed conflict against England.

However if you want to stay with the constitution then I presume your wife is at home cleaning and getting ready to prepare your evening meal? I presume you are Catholic and dont believe in contraception? Say your prayers every night? Beat your wife? Demand your 'husbands rights'? Agree that single parents should be locked up and their children quietly dealt with?

The simple facts of WW2 is that, as stated above Ireland was in no condition to decalre war on anyone. We had closer ties with germany than with the allies at the time. Eamonn signed the book of condolences, we refused the English request to remove the German ebassador and our military/police were armed and suuplied by the Germans.

This changed when it became evident that Hitler had plans for little old Ireland (operation green I think it was called). And it was at this stage that Ireland became closer to the allies by allowing allied forces to be returned to England and allowing allied forces to remove their own downed planes/ships/etc however Germans were detained as POW's (How can we have POW's if we arent at war?).

Simple reality of the times, we couldnt fight a bar brawl nevermind a war and still cant. We were only 20 odd years old as a nation and had been fighting the Enlgish for years so Eamonn adopted the enemy of my enemy is my friend strategy.

It was that disdain for England which resulted in the Free state buying German uniforms and equipment for our police/military despite an offer from England to provide these items for free.

Eamonn DeValera and the early governments of this nation did many great things but they also did many terrible things.

by Jim Thu Oct 13, 2005 16:19

Ireland was neutral in WW2 for the following reasons:

Firstly and most importantly Ireland was following a policy of gradually dismantly the 1922 Treaty by slowly severing its links with the Common Wealth in the interests of establishing ever more independence for Eire. If we had joined with Canada, South Africa, Australia and India we would be doing a policy u-turn in our relationship to Britain- the tradition established by successive Irish governments.
Secondly it was believed that Ireland should avoid the destruction that it was feared would be wrought and was wrought on the rest of Europe if the Nazis saw Ireland as aggressors.

Both reasons of course were utterly misguided.
The Germans would not have spared our independence or our population from genocide had Britain been defeated and Europe completely at their mercy.

We followed the same policy in the Cold War post the declaration of the republic by refusing to side with NATO against the Soviets.

Russians had no scruples about swallowing Eastern Europe so there was no reason why they would have spared Ireland just because of our neutrality.

Currently the US is fighting its war against Al-Qeada terrorists worldwide.
Presumeably advocates of neutrality today believe that Al-Qeada will spare neutral Ireland (a country that is tolerant and multicultural society with a large Christian majority with a legal system which upholds the equal rights of women and does not prohibit the sexual freedoms of its citizens) from suicide bombings?

In WW2 thankfully we were spared by the sacrifices of the Allies from the Nazi jackboot.
In the Cold War we were spared by NATO from the Soviet gulag.
Today we will be spared from Al-Qeada terrorism once again by the US the only country in the world truly prepared to fight it to the finish.

Our neutrality only exists because we have lived in a save contained bubble protected by our powerful neighbours since 1939.

by Michael Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:19

Haven't heard from you in a while! Great to see you back on Indymedia!

To be fair BP, the Dail voted to on March 20, 2003 to (in effect) give war powers to the government to help the Americans invade Iraq. That Kearns J is a FF stooge is widely known. But in 'Horgan' he pointed out something that's difficult to ignore: The Irish Constitution says that Dail Eireann is in charge, and the Gov are in charge of foreign affairs. Once the parliament says that they're cool with mass murder in Iraq, then there's little point asking a judge to do anything about it. If you want to stop it you've godda do what Mary Kelly did.

by BP Tue Oct 11, 2005 23:41 BlackPope at operamail dot com

Dear Mr. Ryan,

your analyis is incisive and very thought-provoking. Well done on the solid, well-presented research.

From my own study of the matter, your basic premise that the Preamble is binding under law is completely correct and literally quivering with legal merit - this has been adjudicated upon and sustained in several Supreme Court cases - certainly at least in support of the notion that the Catholic Church should have some privileged (i.e. tax-payer subsidised) role in this country, amongst other instances.

If you'd like variants for the new policy name - let's call it "The Ahern Doctrine of Neutrality", as in *neutralising opposition* that is - in which the doctrine consists of -- 'We politicos of the Capital Monopoly Party (FF-FG-PD-LABOUR conglomerate) will continue to greedily suckle disturbing ideological effluent from the rear-end of our idol Bush-God and act like animatronic clones according to his will, meantime, you poor fools, thinking yourselves sovereign citizens and owners of this country, wither under the boot-heel of the state repression we mean to bring down upon you, comforted all the while by our ritual intonation of the mythical buzzword neutrality which we know you so love to hear.'

Yes, Irish Neutrality is a sick joke, a pathetic sham. And your post is a healthy contribution to help lance this puss-filled boil. But who is ultimately to blame? The liars and decieving puppets in power who are just doing their shitty shit-jobs to the best of their limited ability, or the Irish populace, supposedly sovereign over and watchful of the affairs of the Nation, which continues to swallow this cable of BS hook, lie and stinker? And who will solve the problem, or make any honest attempt? These questions lead to those about assuming personal responsability as one of those citizens for the remedy to this abominable state of (inter)national affairs. Everyone must answer that one for themselves ultimately, but better through horizontal discussion with others pre-occupied with the same problem than in isolation.

Whatever you, I or anyone else might think of this present Constitution of RoI or the nature of its genesis (e.g. that it is a disgusting, bishop-ridden abortion of the minds of catholic fanatics which betrays the best principles of all who fought and sacrificed for a secular, sovereign or socialist Republic), it is still, in theory, binding upon each and every agent and institution of the State, all of whom are 'creatures' of it -- but if - and that is one very grave conditional, it can be effectively used to in any way re-assert some control (even in small increments) by the poular will over the current gang of lackey lickspittle puppets in Leinster House, then it is certainly not to be sneezed at.

Certain parties in this country believe that it can, with the help of plenty of elbow-grease etc., be thus used and are very interested in propelling this idea through the realm of wishful thinking and into useful reality - I therefore invite you and anyone else genuinely interested in this subject to mail me in order to continue this discussion and get into the nitty-gritty.

Long live the People's Resistance, Worldwide - Sand instead of Oil in the gears of the rapacious War-Machine!

Schalom, BP


PS: Don't worry about the defeatist whingeing posted above, this is part of the 'white noise' you have to learn to look through on this site. Just more proof that freedom of speech is never free!

by Michael Tue Oct 11, 2005 21:37

"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied." -- Claud Cockburn

Not one single member of FF or the PDs voted against the war powers resolution on March 20th, 2003. Note that the Turkish parliament -- Turkey!! -- voted against the US and their own generals. There's *lots* of work still to do if we ever want to see a war powers resolution defeated in the Dail.

by Michael Tue Oct 11, 2005 21:19

Thanks for posting this article here, and for requesting feedback. I've had the time to write a bit about this before on Indymedia Ireland -- about the Constitution and the Laws of Neutrality (part of the Laws of War) -- as has Ed Horgan among others.

Anyways, regarding "neutrality" -- nobody owns that word, so I think its fair enough that people use it in different ways. That can lead to a situation where someone's neutrality doesn't look much like yours and mine. Basically though, the legal definition in the 5th Hague Convention of 1907 is a fair guide for countries who want to respect the laws of war. It's got all the important do's and don'ts for law-abiding states to observe during a time of war.

Following the Horgan case in the Irish High Court, it appears that the Irish government is under no obligation to behave lawfully in its international relations. Furthermore -- and this is the case for all Dail decisions -- if Dail Eireann votes to support a war but at the time of the vote says that they are not voting to support a war (as they did March 20, 2003), you can't go to the High Court and complain that the politicians were dishonest. So, as always, it's important to move past the rhetoric and pay closer attention to actions.

Dail Eireann voted on March 20, 2003 to allow US military use of Ireland's airfields and airspace to continue for their purposes of the Iraq war. That the politicians said it wasn't at odds with "Ireland's neutrality" mean very little.

Ireland is a party to the armed conflict in Iraq, and as far as the Irish Constitution is concerned, and the Irish High Court in its current configuration are concerned, there's not much you can do to get them (the courts, the authorities) to stop it.

On the other hand, the Government never received the assent of Dail Eireann to participate in the armed conflict in Afghanistan. In a few weeks time the Irish High Court will say whether that provision of the Constitution -- that the Dail must agree to participation in war -- is real or just "aspirational".

by Seán Ryan Tue Oct 11, 2005 16:45

Allow me to insert a quote from the Dáil made on the 19th of Feb 2003 by the then minister for defence, Mr. Michael Smith.

STATEMENT BY MR. MICHAEL SMITH, T.D, MINISTER FOR DEFENCE, PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS PROPOSED TWENTY FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITIUTION (NEUTRALITY) DÁIL ÉIREANN, 19th FEBRUARY 2003

.... Irish neutrality became practically possible with the return by Britain of the Treaty posts in 1938. Neutrality has since then been a policy adopted by successive Governments. It has as its core defining characteristic the non-membership of military alliances..........

I understand that the full working version of our "neutrality policy" didn't arrive untill 1939, but I refuse outright to accept any propaganda, which belies the fact that our "neutrality policy" was initially facilitated by the return of the treaty posts.

I did not try to paint De Valera as a hero, I don't even begin to believe that myself.

Again, ALL my questions were devoted to people's opinions and knowledge of the preamble in our Constitution. The fact that some anonymous "helper" has presumed to tell me that I don't understand my own opinion worries me. Particularly when the same person presumes to lecture me as if my opinion was illogically derrived.

What makes it more suspicious and annoying is that my "detractor" failed to point out any logical or otherwise inconsistancies with my argument itself and I say this with particular reference to what I had to say about our constitution and its preamble.

If you feel you must do a hatchet job on me, at least focus on the arguments I made and show them to be wrong.

If however you feel you must debate further the origin of our "neutrality policy" then know I will not respond again. The argument may have merit from an entertainment perspective, but it has no bearing whatsoever on either the piece I wrote as a whole or my premise that our "neutrality policy" is a very bad joke and that it is repugnant to our constitution.

A good day to you and I hope you feel better soon.

Seán Ryan

by hmmm Tue Oct 11, 2005 14:23

Neutrality and all discussion of neutrality in or beyond Ireland by the Irish usually begins with a series of the assumptions and false readings of history :-
* we prepared neutrality faced with WW2 and rushed to gain control of the treaty ports.
* De Valera was the architect of coherent and consistent foreign policy with the Neutrality clause of his 1937 constitution as the jewel in the crown.
* Neutrality was the foreign policy option favoured and supported by the majority of the Irish Peoples.
* Neutrality in the post War period is based on the period 1937-1945.

The assumption that somehow De Valera knew what he was doing, and acted in the best and most honest and honourable interest of the Irish peoples reinforces the belief that the DeValera regime created a national shiboleeth, one that was best championed by the party he left behind.

We all know since childhood from learning one of the sonnets of our greatest national poets of the period, Kavanagh that "the year of the munich bother" and the "deep sea ports bother" saw
Irish people argue over half a rood of rock.
And the poet wondered which was more important.

Neutrality to remain a part of our cherished national consciousness beyond the anachronstic document An Bunreacht (which weekly we find fault with) has to be understood in different terms to De Valera's wise and wiley foreign policy.

So i'd like to ask some questions of the readership:-

Was De Valera's neutrality the same as Sweden's and Switzerland's? or more akin to Franco's?
Was De Valera's foreign policy not only shaped in the pre-war period by confict with both the British, and those who opposed him in his state and the statelet of Northern Ireland, but also influenced by his perception of U.S. isolationism?
To what extent did De Valera understand his neutrality as a tactical manouvre to influence the course of any multi-treaty war?
In short before we hack at the perpetual question of De Valera's Eire state, "whose side was he neutral on?" lets wonder why that clause got into Bunreacht in the first place. Without any incredible powers of foresight attributed falsely to the civil servants, beurocrats and lawmakers who did it.

Once we've properly answered that, we know why we want neutrality in the next constitution, and then we decide what it actually means.

by Jim Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:59

De Valera knew that Ireland could not have been able to field a modern army because its economy in 1939 was predominantly agricultural - we did not have the industry to produce any quantity of arms, we were totally dependent on imports for our fuel except for turf which was stock piled in the Phoenix Park and the drain on manpower and resources would have made an already harsh environment much worse.

De Valera made a calculation based in the history of the First World War.
No European army in modern times had been able to cross the English Channel to invade England - The Royal Navy truly did rule the waves although the Germans came close with their U-boats.
De Valera presumed that the fighting would be in static trenches and would be confined to the Continent.
Apart from severe shortages for a few years Ireland would suffer no more than it had been suffering during the Economic War of the 1930's.

De Valera did not know about the German Blitzkrieg warfare demonstrated in Scandinavia which if used against Ireland could have captured the crucial ports Churchill was so eager to use in order to secure the Atlantic approaches to Britain.
If Hitler had landed a few thousand Whermacht troops at Cork and then marched on Dublin in a stroke he would have cut Britain off from the sea routes to America.
Belfast was in range of the Luftwaffe and judging by the damage they caused to the city the same could have been done to Dublin.
Had the Germans invaded Ireland our neutrality would not have mattered a jot.
Travellers and the strong Jewish population at the time would have been the first to be sent to Auschwitz while the inferior Irish race would have been enslaved or liquidated just like the Poles or Russians.

A few airdrops by the USAF would have supplied the IRA for a few months before the Gestapo rounded them up and shot them all.

With Britain out of the war the Americans would have had to invade Ireland first in order to secure the sea route to Normandy if they were to land there in 1944 which would probably have failed.

In the resulting Cold War between European Union of National Socialist States and the United States of America (Russia having being defeated at Stalingrad) the Germans would have established nuclear missile bases on Ireland's west coast and established bases for its jet fighters and Kriegsmarine aircraft carriers by the 1960's.

So I think it would have been more prudent given the dire risk at the time that Ireland should have recruited tens of thousands of men to be supplied and trained by the US and British Armies to form an Irish Corp to be used just as the Free French Canadians South Africans and Indians.

by - Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:52

The Irish Free State won independence in 1922, three deep water Treaty Ports, at Berehaven, Queenstown (renamed Cobh) and Lough Swilly, were retained by the United Kingdom as sovereign bases.

This was a condition of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 6, 1921, which ended the Irish War of Independence.

The ports remained under the control of the UK until Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement in 1938.

the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement ended "the tariff war" and was the precursor of both the "common Area agreement" and the "Sterling area agreement". The former was absorbed into the Irish and UK states entry requirements for the EEC and form the basis for the current Irish and UK states exemption from Shengen after the creation of the EU.

Now Sean, when did the Anglo Irish Free Trade agreement get signed and are you absolutely sure it was a precursor to WW2?

Think about this & all it implies.

Was De Valera forecasting a world conflict of 6 years length in which his state would end amongst the only 10 who had not made declarations of war in _1938_?
(Munich "peace in our time" was signed on september 29th) or....

Was De Valera just thinking about the little island statelet he had, and ending the tariff war which had compounded the misery of the ordinary people of Eire in the post civil war period and ensured their continuing mass migration?