Talk:Irish neutrality

I believe the statement on Ireland suffering more casualties than any other country in the UK in this article is factually incorrect. According to statistics available on the web, Scotland suffered more fatalities (147,609) than the total number of Irishmen who volunteered from August 1914 to the end of the war (134,202).

This article, which is entirely the work of User:66.185.84.208, needs substantial work. It is full of inaccuracy - for example, there was no conscription in Ireland during World War I! User_talk:66.185.84.208 seems to have a history of vandalism, although it is a shared IP and the article does have *some* valid material amid the inaccuracy. Blorg 16:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Having read through it, I think it is likely to have been a school project that was donated to Wikipedia; I don't think there was an intention to defraud and the inaccuracies are probably due to inadequate research. I've fixed some of the problems but it still needs attention from someone more knowledgeable about Irish history. Blorg 17:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've copy-edited and added sections and links etc. to the article, hopefully without significantly altering the meaning of the contents which I'm not knowledgable enough to re-write. On this basis, I've removed the 'clean-up' template and replaced it with 'disputed' as I consider this now more accurately reflects what still needs to be addressed in this article. I toyed with an 'attention' marker, but as other editors have commented on inaccuracy I settled on 'disputed' Valiantis 19:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The current policy section seems rather politically motivated "Today, unlike Sweden, Switzerland and Japan, the Republic of Ireland is not officially a neutral country and could join any war it pleases." This is untrue, as for Ireland to participate in any UN missions it must have a UN Mandate from the Security Council (so this could technically allow Ireland to go to war, as the Korean war was technically speaking, a "UN War"), as well as approval from both houses of the Irish parliament.

Also, the mission in Liberia is a UN sanctioned peace enforcement mission. Whatever the political views one may take, Ireland is not in a position to unilaterally enter into any conflict (let alone humanitarian mission, with the "Triple Lock" in place).

Also, the section on the First World War is irrelevant, as the Irish state did not exist in 1914. I say both these sections should be removed, as both seem highly politically motivated.

I expanded this article, it was not a school project, nor did I at any stage say there was conscription in WWI that must have been added by someone else, when I started my changes WWI was already there, I agree it is not important.

I am not a member of any political party nor was my contribution politically motivated.

There is no law or declaration anywhere that says Ireland is a neutral state, and most neutral states do not allow other military forces to use their soil, Ireland does. Ireland also can support a war with UN approval, other neutral states are neutral in all circumstances.

Ireland does have the so called triple lock, this can be removed by law at any time, the constitution only requires the approval of Dail Eireann for war.

It's very important to note there is a substantial diffrence of opinion about Irish neutrality.

There are many political parties in Ireland who want the country to be neutral, they all have a diffrent idea of it.

I am about to make more changes.

I attempted some further edits, I hope they don't conflict. I do not consider the article remotely neutral yet. It is important that the article examine the nature of Irish neutrality, but also recognises that the matter is one for debate (the issue is suitably ambiguous on a number of points). The article should recognise that as far as official policy goes, Ireland is neutral. Even if the situation on the ground runs contrary to some common neutrality principles. zoney ♣ talk 19:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe much of the confusion about this entry (and the debate in Ireland over "Irish neutrality") comes from bundling being neutral with being non-aligned. Neutrality is something that only happens during a time of war, and it simply means that you're not a party to the conflict. You don't have to be non-aligned to be neutral in a given war. Example: Slovenia, a full member of NATO, was a neutral power during the recent Iraq war. It was a neutral power because it conformed more or less to the minimum international standards set out for non-participants (neutral powers) during a time of war in the Hague Convention (V) 1907 (they didn't allow US military overflights or refueling). Same for Turkey, another full member of NATO. Indeed, every state in the world is a "neutral" visavie every ongoing conflict to which it is not a party (attacking or being attacked). Some states have laws binding them to that posture (non-participation, neutrality) visavie particular conflicts or states (like Austria), and some have laws even binding them permanantly that way (like Switzerland or Turkmenistan). Ireland hasn't had any laws binding us to that posture since the Spanish Civil War (Non-intervention) Act 1937. Indeed, two recent Judicial Reviews (Horgan v Ireland 2003 and Dubsky v Ireland 2005) have confirmed the opposite: Ireland is not (ever!) obliged to conform to customary international law, and the minimum international standards of neutrality in particular. --Slackr 16:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I added

1. that German sailors were also interned
2. ‘guests of the nation’
3. no declaration of war – unlike most of South America
4. the shipping paragraph – I must do a separate article on this
5. Belfast bombing
6. Donegal corridor and Shannon

I removed

1. ‘failed’ from the League of Nations, as that was not deV’s opinion.
2. Franco and the book of condolence, as its not relevant
3. Grey and his Derry question

I modified

1. positions of German submarines were regularly reported to the Royal Navy through secret messages – there was no actual ‘reporting or ‘secret messages’ They just reported back to their base. The British could hear. They knew that the British were listening. But the strict letter of neutrality was not broken

Need to add some material on deV and the League of Nations and how that shaped neutrality. --ClemMcGann 00:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Dongeal corridor

As I said in an earlier version that got edited out, the Dongeal corridor was used by the RAF prior to the US entering the war, it was used by the recce plane that spotted the Bismarck. It must have been fairly common knowledge that they were overflying Donegal since it did not make sense to have a flying boat base on Lough Erne otherwise. PatGallacher 08:33, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

why was it removed? --194.125.111.194 10:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Iraq

"The Irish government did not take a position on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, although most of the population were against it"

This is almost certainly true but there are no official statistics or sources cited to back it up. Perhaps it should be changed to "...although a majority of the population appeared to oppose it". It's a bit cumbersome but it's important to maintain the article as NPOV.Dmitry 21:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Insertions of "seemed/appeared", like the Passive of Non-Attribution, do not create neutrality in contexts where it does not already exist. If the remark were about public treatment in the press, however, it would gain some authenticity. --Wetman 02:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)