Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
RUBEN AMORIM SAID Manchester United are in a battle for Premier League survival after losing 2-0 to Newcastle on Monday to end 2024 14th in the table.
United are seven points above the relegation zone but are on the slide since Amorim took charge last month.
Alexander Isak and Joelinton struck inside the first 19 minutes as United lost a third consecutive home league game since 1979.
“That is really clear so we have to fight,” said Amorim on United being dragged into a relegation battle.
“It is a really difficult moment, one of the more difficult moments in the history of Manchester United and we have to address it with honesty.
“We have to fight in the next game.”
Worse could be to come as United travel to runaway Premier League leaders Liverpool on Sunday before facing Arsenal in the FA Cup third round.
Amorim has come under criticism for refusing to budge from his 3-4-3 formation since joining from Sporting Lisbon, where he won two Portuguese league titles.
The 39-year-old reacted to a disastrous start by replacing Joshua Zirkzee after just 33 minutes with Kobbie Mainoo.
United improved after the change, but the damage had already been done.
Amorim, though, was adamant that he will not change his ways, even if it ultimately costs him his job.
“You cannot go back, you have to continue to push,” he added.
“We’ve had four training (sessions) all together, I was (brought) here because of my idea and I will continue with my idea until the end.”
Written by AFP and originally published on The 42 whose award-winning team produces original content that you won’t find anywhere else: on GAA, League of Ireland, women’s sport and boxing, as well as our game-changing rugby coverage, all with an Irish eye. Subscribe here.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Did those people who said they were in favour of neutrality understand the costs involved? To be truly neutral we would need to invest significantly in a home-grown defence industry, expand our naval capacity and seriously modernise and expand the Air Corps to be truly neutral. Until then we still rely on NATO to secure our airspace and waters which means we are not neutral.
We could always just not get involved in other countries business. It doesn’t matter how much we invest in military, we’re a tiny country so anyone who wanted to could crush us. All we can do is not give them any reason to do so.
That’s not entirely true Guru. Compare Switzerland and the Benelux during WW2. The Benelux countries were neutral but had a small standing force and relied on France and Britain for protection. Their standing armies were small and easily swept aside while they waited for support. Switzerland relied on itself and, while plans were made to invade it, the loss of life to take it was deemed far in excess of what taking the country was worth. Switzerland and Sweden built their neutrality on maintaining forces large enough that any invasion would be too costly to be worth it and this worked while countries that relied on our style of neutrality have historically been swept aside.
Somewhat true but Sweden & Switzerland were more beneficial economically, politically and militarily to Germany as neutral.
Physical geography plays a huge part in a country’s capacity to stay neutral in a conflict. Switzerland is mountainous and possesses a large military trained population who can be called on to to defend it. Sweden geographically is a huge country with a bad climate for half the year. It too has its own very well developed armaments industry. Ireland is surrounded by protectors so we can afford to sit on the fence, our geographical position enables us to do that.
@Jason Culligan: Swiss neutrality during WW2 was guaranteed by the German government, neither France or Britain played any part in protecting Switzerland.
@Chris Kirk:
Read my comment again Chris. I said the Benelux area’s neutrality was guaranteed by the French and the British. I specifically and explicitly stated that Switzerland relied upon itself.
Germany may have verbally offered a guarantee to Swiss neutrality, however the Operation Tannenbaum plans showed that Germany certainly didn’t intend on keeping that promise if they could afford it. Hitler himself was very vocal in internal memos that he despised Switzerland and it’s people and wanted to take control.
Let’s go down the Swiss route – a few years of military service for all males – and a mandatory 2 weeks military service every year until you’re in your 40′s. Sounds cheap. Let’s mine all the bridges and tunnels like Switzerland – or in our case build a wall and mine the ports.
@Jason Culligan: The Benelux countries along with France were occupied by the Germans during WW2.
@Micheal S. O’ Ceilleachair: surrounded by protectors, you are having a laugh on one side is thousands of miles of ocean on the other is an aggressive bully who is perpetually at war and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Irish people.
Well NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and last time I looked at the map Ireland is situated in the North Atlantic just west of our protector Great Britain!!
David Higgins, are you serious with that that comment? Mine the bridges and tunnels? What are you smoking?
@Jason Culligan: Neutrality is not about “growing a defence industry”, neither is it about investing huge amounts of money on building a conventional navy or air defence, all which could be neutralised by an aggressive super-power in minutes. Real Neutrality is a state of mind. This consciousness has to be built locally but with a national dimension. We only need a small standing defence force, modern and well trained, which would merge into our communities in the event of hostile action. It would be a fully integrated defence network with the capacity to undermine and eventually defeat such a hostile invasion. As a small independent Neutral Country we have to be advocates for peace and peaceful solutions and strive by example to demonstrate that military aggression and war beget the same in ever larger doses.
Can we change our name to Sitonthefenceland. You shouldn’t need a neutrality agreement. As a state you make your choices on a decision by decision basis. There may come a time when we have to be bold and make a decision about supporting some war. Hopefully never but this seems to be a waste of time
@Dessie Curley: 100% correct. The government of the day should always be completely free to deploy our troops as they see fit: this is one of the hallmarks of any sovereign country to be honest.
The last fifty years were probably the best time in global history for us to maintain our cod-neutrality but the next fifty years are shaping up to be far less stable so the last thing we should be doing is hamstringing ourselves with some nonsense constitutional amendment.
We’ve gotten by just fine with our principle on neutrality for decades, even in WW2. And calling for the acceptance of Russian occupation of Crimea is rather unsettling. If the Brits invaded us tomorrow because we were part of the UK for a long time, would you accept this? You’d have to, if you want to keep your logic consistent.
We have gained so much from our membership of the EU. While I agree that they have overreached in recent years, that is not reason enough to abandon it entirely. And while it is true that Russia is not our enemy, it is not our friend either. They seek to regain the power and influence they had in the Cold War, and you would have to be blind not to see this.
Crimea was never part of Ukraine until a Ukrainian dictator of the Soviet Union handed it to them in 1954. It has a large Russian ethnic minority and most people want to be part of Russia. I can’t see how any Irish republican can have a problem with Crimea as a part of Russia. If the west are all for self determination in cases like Kosovo let’s have an internationally organised vote in Crimea on self determination, there’s only going to be one outcome. Crimea is not, if never was, Ukrainian.
*large majority
@PaulJ: I take your point to an extent, but the farce that some people call a “referendum” didn’t even offer staying in Ukraine as a choice. There was no way to really know how many people really wanted to leave Ukraine, especially since dissenting voices like Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars were silenced.
I would have accepted an independently monitored referendum with a real choice given to the people. Real debate should have been made between both sides on public forums, without foreign invaders patrolling the streets. But that isn’t what happened. That is why I remain wholeheartedly against the Russian occupation of Crimea.
It was when it was invaded!
Roger Coles’ argument is that Europe should disarm so as not to disrupt Russian invasions of Eastern Europe. This is quite possible the best argument for not constitutionally enshrining neutrality that has ever been made.
@Cillian O’Gara: Doubtful that anyone can turn back the clock on Crimea we must move forward to rebuild relations with Russia. The world needs to trade and create peace whereas Ireland as a part of the EU must share in the burden of defence, instead of sitting on the fence.
@Chris Kirk:
The issue there Chris is that allowing Russia to invade and annex Crimea without any sort of punishment would have given the impression that anyone can invade anywhere at any time without consequence. Whatever the story behind it, Crimea was a territory of the sovereign nation of the Ukraine which Russia invaded and annexed with no legal basis in international law.
The trade sanctions on Russia are still hurting their economy quite severely. It sends the message that, while the West won’t rise militarily over small areas like Crimea, it will leverage it’s economic strength to make such moves fiscally insane.
Easing off now without any concessions from Russia would be idiotic from a purely foreign policy standpoint.
@PaulJ: Crimea was never part of Russia either until occupied by them at the end of the 18th century. Then it was aggressively colonised by Russia and its native Tatar people were decimated. Ask the Tatars today which state they’d rather be part of and they’ll tell you Ukraine. Also, Khrushchev was Russian, not Ukrainian
@Paul – Do you realise how your comment is transferable to scores of other historical descriptions of occupiers. Should the Danes come back to Ireland and claim their colonised lands. Or Japan retake Korea? Pfft!
@Jason Culligan: What do you suggest Jason? Making Putin drop his pants and take six of the best as punishment?
What then will we do to the mandarins of the EU, the USA, and NATO for fermenting political unrest and regime change in the Ukraine, that caused the problems there in the first place?
The Russians are in a majority as the Crimean Tatars were ethnically cleansed in the 1930′s and 1940′s.
Dave – I’m not sure if you’ve ever been to the Ukraine. Most people there wanted to overthrow the corrupt leadership – a leadership supported by Russia.
Do you really think the EU is capable of stirring up a revolution – it can barely stir a cup of coffee. The only influence that the EU has is that Ukrainians see it as prosperous and democratic. Thousands of Ukrainians live and work in Poland. They can see how Poland has become wealthy free of thee Soviet yoke – and want to do the same
@PaulJ:
Following your logic Crimea should be given to Turks as part of the Ottmann Empire before the Russian Empire invaded in 18th century, Also The Crimean Tatars were forcibly expelled to Central Asia by Joseph Stalin’s government as a form of collective punishment, on the grounds that they had formed pro-German Tatar Legions. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Crimean Tatars began to return to the region.[103] According to the 2001 Ukrainian population census 58% of the population of Crimea are ethnic Russians and 24% are ethnic Ukrainians
@David HIggins: I never said the EU done the damage on its own. The EU, NATO and the USA combined to cause the trouble and force a regime change. The Ukraine didn’t and doesnt have any monopoly on corrupt leadership, look no further than the cesspool FG/FF/Lab have mired the country in. Yet you dont see regime changed being forced on us here. But we might have a attempt made when we get rid of the corrupt establishment at present.
The “Soviet yoke” is gone a long time now, but you still see Poles coming to Ireland in their thousands, it must be really prosperous if they can afford the air fare.
@Dave Doyle: “The Ukraine didn’t and doesn’t have any monopoly on corrupt leadership, look no further than the cesspool FG/FF/Lab have mired the country in”
I tire of useless and facetious comparisons I really do. Comparing whatever corruption takes place in Ireland with the kleptocracy that was the Ukraine simply suggests that you do not know what corruption is. And the problem in Ukraine was about much more than corruption. It had shades of the British-Irish relationship as between Ukrainians and Russian Ukranians and the influence of Russia.
Putin wants to reestablish the Russian Empire. He wants to do this despite the fact that Russia is economically collapsing and has not diversified economically despite oil wealth. You want to accept the right of a large country to invade and annex a smaller country just like the UK did to Ireland. You cannot run the world that way unless you want to return to a bygone era. Putin could go after the Balkans next. At least one Balkan state has a substantial Russian minority – they were planted there by the Russians a lot more recently than the Unionists in N. Ireland.
The problem with your solution is that it is entirely a one way street and it’s all in the direction of Russia. You propose a policy of appeasement. Dress it up however you wish. That was tried before with Adolf Hitler. That ended well didn’t it.
David, you know nothing about the amazing corruption in Ukraine. Check out how much the politicians declared their assets to be. The natural resources are being controlled by mafia like groups, profiting from the illegal sale of coal, steel, amber, timber. Comparing it to the Irish system is ridiculous.
No one forced a regime change. Stop reading Russian troll websites to get your “alternative view” on the world.
When I was in Ukraine in July 99% of the Ukrainians I met supported the war against Russia. They supported the overthrow of the incredibly corrupt president (check out his private zoo – now a tourist attraction). This is in spite of most Ukrainians speaking Russian, watching Russian TV, with close family ties to Russia.
You’ve never been there, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
@Jason Culligan: it was not so much a question of allowing Russia to invade its neighbour, rather a question of not being military prepared to defend the borders. Russia can pick off countries as it likes it seems in this fragile peace. Better to work together and try to understand the reasons for hostility and put an end to the war games between Nato and Russia.
@David HIggins: I know as much, and probably more than you do. I may not have been there but i work with Russians, among others, and have Russian friends.
I will read what i like, from where i like, comment how i please. I dont need or ask for your permission.
You still haven’t answered as to how many countries the USA have invaded since the 1960s.
Excuse neo-liberal warmongering propaganda all you like. Snore all you want. It won’t change the facts.
@John R: It seems you and your ilk have no problem with the USA invading where it likes for any reason, or none.
I live in a Balkan state, an ex Soviet Bloc country, no one here fears that Russia is going to invade. There are fears about Erdogan in Turkey, but none about Putin.
@David HIggins: Ethnically cleansed by the Greeks about 2,300 years ago
Can we keep stuff out of the constitution unless it’s absolutely needed. 1983 and the mess that is the 8th amendment should be lesson enough. What is wrong with relying on the Oireachtas as the day to define out (non) alliance needs. We today cannot predict what will be needed in 30 or 50 years time.
I’m a bit confused – you advocate neutrality but give the okay to Russia’s invasion of Crimea? Is this ‘as long as it doesn’t affect me’ stances?
@Podge: He is also basically advocating that the West should also let the three Baltic states fend for themselves against an aggressive Russia, who would no doubt just love to invade like they did in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and Georgia to defend the “Russian-speaking peoples”.
Roger Cole, ‘pacifist’ and big fan of Putin and Russia that he so clearly is, strangely has little to say about what’s currently happening in Aleppo.
It was called appeasement in the 1930s and look how that ended up.
Well Northern Ireland was part of the island of Ireland long before the English, so let’s make a land grab there first. It was ok for the Russians to do it right?
So the plan is to let massacre and injustice happen where it likes as long as we are not involved? And what if Irish people are caught up in the middle? Leave them to their own fate? Sounds cowardly to me.
It’s like listening to your neighbour beating up his wife and kids and being proud of yourself for staying out of it
….. sounds practical to me. Should we declare war on Russia for annexing the Crimea????
No, we support the EU sanctions on Russia. We don’t let “useful idiots” like this author whitewash the invasion of other countries.
@David HIggins: Who supports them? The idiots running the country, doing whatever they are told by their masters in the EU and Washington? Merkel seems to be able to get around the “sanctions” to continue shipping cars to Russia. Fairly selective in exactly what sanctions are applied and by whom.
“Invasion of other countries” You’re having a laugh there, because you can’t be taken seriously. What country has invaded more countries than any other since the 1960′s up to the present day?
There’s not many German cars being sold in Russia now, even if the sanctions were not in place, the ruble has collapsed so the average person can’t afford a car – let alone an expensive German import.
@Lorem Ipsum: not being neutral would be more like two of your neighbours fighting and you join whichever side you think will win or give you some of the other neighbours stuff.
@Seamus Corcoran: well not so long ago Irish people on this island faced massacre and injustice and the only ones fighting it were the IRA and the irish government made it illegal to be a volunteer.
“It was not a passing value either but it was strongly supported by all those that took part in the 1916 Rising and in our national war of Independence against the British Union and Empire.”
You really damage your credibility with this. The proclamation clearly references “gallant allies in Europe”. You can’t have allies if you’re neutral
And how could you ever know the minds of “all those who took part”? There were men who fought in 1919-21 who had previously fought in WW1 and other conflicts. Others would go on to serve in later conflicts, including WW2. Where was their “strong support” for neutrality then?
Also, there’s no such thing as the “British Union”
@Lorem Ipsum: Well spotted about the “gallant allies”. A glaring contradiction if ever there was one.
…. and who provided weaponry for the Easter Rising, why our friendly Germans of course. Neutrality!!!
We need to wake up and smell the roses. Typical Irish mentality. Living in the past. How can we just look on if it kicks off against “OUR” EU borders. We sit on our hands and watch the other EU nations send there families into battle to defend us! While we just chant “we are neutral”. This is embarrassing as a citizen of Europe.
Irish citizens are free to join foreign militaries, if you want to fight there are plenty of options abroad.
“This is embarrassing as a citizen of Europe”. That’s nauseating.
Are you speaking in the conditional tense or in the present tense because there’s no other EU country fighting Ireland’s “battles” (we are not in war btw).
Not yet. I hope never.
@Gerard Casserly: The Germans bombed Dublin during WW2 and had invasion plans in place was hardly looking at Ireland through rose tinted specticals. Neutrality is pacifism in the eyes of an invader, sure weren’t the vikings just nice people to be raiding, raping and looting our country. Forget about neutrality it just doesnt exist in the real world, if it is worth fighting for then it has to be defended along with our neighbours.
Irish men and women should never have to go to war unless their own country is attacked. The EU wants to create an army that should be opposed by Ireland. The horror of war was felt twice by many families on this island and does not need to be repeated.
The EU doesn’t want to create an army.
@David HIggins: Jean Claude Juncker has called for a EU army in his recent state of the union address (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/berlin-backs-jean-claude-juncker-call-for-european-army-1.2863126)
@David HIggins: You really live in some fantasy land.
How on earth did this article make it on to the Journal? It is little more than Russian propaganda!
Would any Irish person like to leave it to a cowardly taoiseach to decide if we go to war.
@joe o hare: No I would leave that to the Dáil.
@John R: led by a cowardly taoiseach or do you know something we don’t.
Having our hands bound in paper to never lift a finger is all good, but what happens when someone wants an easily taken piece of North Western airfield to mount Atlantic operations? Let the British re-invade? Give them the right to re-occupy the country, & claim it back as correcting the “error” of Irish independence?
@Colm Flaherty:
That was almost exactly the agreement between the Irish and British governments during WW2. The Irish government essentially gave the British the right to invade and occupy the country should the Germans attempt to take the country.
The British also did the same to Iceland during the war. They were neutral, however the British used the presence of German diplomats as an excuse to invade and occupy the country until the end of the war.
@Colm Flaherty: No elect sinn fein let them purchase weapons get a few of the volunteers to bury them in strategic places around the country to make it uncontrollable under occupation.
Crimea was a part of Russia for about 130 years, or rather the Russian Empire. Given Ukraine also was, it doesn’t mean much. It was Ottoman up to the late 18th century, and was a republic in the USSR until it joined Ukraine.
If Dublin 4 wanted to secede and join the UK, would you be justifying British troops invading it on the basis that Britain had a historical interest in it? Is that how it’s supposed to work? Are treaties meaningless to great powers?
Take a look at Rogers website… for a group that are against war they have been very quiet on the Russians & pals bombing the crap out of kids in Aleppo
Russia is not our enemy. That’s true. It has invaded its neighbour – Ukraine. It has invaded its neighbour – Georgia. It has supported rebels who shot down a passenger jet – remember?
Russia is a totalitarian state, where Putin gathers his billions, and doles out billions to his cronies.
Russia has a state propaganda channel – Russia Today – if you ever want to hear that black is white and vice versa. It sounds like the author has been watching too much RT.
@David HIggins: The USA has invaded countries that aren’t even its neighbour. It is also the most totalitarian state in the world, run by neo-liberals hell bent on forcing their agenda on every country it can. Look at what is happening re DAPL and say that’s not the action of a totalitarian state.
Neo-liberal….. snore
@David HIggins: Britain is our enemy they have invaded us and continue to occupy part of this country. Their army has killed people during peaceful protests, shot and killed unarmed men women and children, they have armed and trained rebels, provided them with information and carried out attacks in this country including our capital city, but go on tell us more about big bad Russia.
Ah sure German under Hitler would never have invaded us had they had the chance…… they respected countries neutrality didn’t they. No we are not and can never be neutral. If the new cold war turned hot do people really think Russia would allow food gas coal supplies to us and not to Britain? Cop on. Speak softly and carry a bit stick
Neutrality I agree. His logic and supporting arguments – no.
I’m on the fence about this. The world is getting so complicated and neutrality is not respected by non-state actors. But even if we were to be neutral, you have to have the ability to defend yourself.
Ireland likes to think it’s neutral but it isn’t, we are utterly dependent on the UK military both in peace time and in the event of a war. We can’t even police our own air space without their help.
If you want to be a neutral country like Switzerland you have to be able to defend yourself like Switzerland.
What Roger seems to be forgetting or ignoring is Russia’s aggression throughout the 20th Century and continuing into the 21st. It was Russia that plotted,financed and trained the assassins of Arch Duke Ferdinand which lead to the First World War. It was Russia along with Germany that invaded Poland starting the Second World War. It was Russia that armed and financed groups such as the PLO, Black September, Baader Meinhoff, the Red Brigade, The Shining Path, The IRA,The INLA, ETA, FARC and numerous others, it was Russia that invaded Afghanistan first, It was Russia that invaded Transdinestra, Georgia and Ukraine. What he chooses to ignore is it is a combination of the EU and NATO that has kept the peace in Europe for the longest period in its history. So it begs the question how much is Russia funding his organisation?
We were never truly neutral. Dev had agreements with Churchill during Ww2 and we now allow American war planes the use of Shannon Airport. To be truly neutral we should also allow Russian/Syrian warplanes the right to land here. You can’t be neutral and then favour one side.
Ireland like Denmark could remain a member of the EU and get rid of the euro,that would give us more wriggle room if they try to play hard ball with us.
EU army will overrule any claim of Irish neutrality, naturlich…
There was only one occasion when “Irish Neutrality” was called on. That was the Second World War. We sat behind Britain “hedging our bets”. When it became clear the British and their allies were going to defeat the Axis Powers we decided to have Benevolent Neutrality towards Britain whilst continuing to sit on the fence. During WW2 Irish Neutrality paradoxically protected Britain’s rear while Britain protected out front. Even Churchill admitted that Ireland did everything to support Britain short of actually going to war. Irish Neutrality was a useful practical mechanism in the face of Nazi threat, but no more than that. We are a tiny state that depends on larger powers to protect us. Geographically was are suited to that. However neutrality should not be enshrined in our constitution. We will never be the aggressor and that is accepted, we are incapable of defending ourselves and depend on Britain to shield us. An té nach bhfuil láidir ní foláir dó bheith glic. And De Valera whatever his shortcomings was certainly “glic” in a crisis. The NATO effectively surrounds us as a protective shield and we can get away with not being a member. Conflicts far away do not really bother us so we can exercise a “benevolent neutrality” towards our “democratic” friends. I cannot imagine us being that benevolent towards Russia or China in their conflict situations. In ain’t Dé a Phaidí, fan neodrach.
@Micheal S. O’ Ceilleachair: you think Britain will protect us, while they still use force to keep part of this country occupied. They have been solely responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Irish people. Thankfully they have diverted their attention elsewhere at the minute.
We they certainly did protect us by default in WW2!!!!
We need to hold a referendum on this if the EU want war or an EU army then count us out. Russia’s red army helped defeat hitlers army and helped win WW2 this seems to be conviently forgotten by the US and the UK when they talk of glory and WW2 . i am all for open talks with Russia and I think Trump is 100% correct in choosing this path over any conflict its peace the majority wants not war.
@Elizabeth Hourihane:
“Russia’s red army helped defeat hitlers army and helped win WW2 this seems to be conviently forgotten by the US and the UK when they talk of glory and WW2 .”
I don’t think you’ve read the same history books that everyone else has. Nobody has ever ignored the sacrifice that the Red Army and Soviet people made during WW2.
What you’re conveniently leaving out, though, is the fact that the Soviet Union started the war as an ally of Nazi Germany and jointly invaded Poland with them. They were more than happy to forcefully occupy half of Poland and the Baltic states. They also used the war as an excuse to militarily occupy half of Europe for nearly 50 years before their empire finally collapsed under it’s own weight.
Russia was almost as bad as Germany. It should always be remembered that the West aided (heavily, Russia would have collapsed without American logistical support) a slightly less evil empire to defeat a slightly more evil one.
@Elizabeth Hourihane: Russia were able to hold the Germans through to the winter because they got huge air support from the allies which constantly hit the Germans. Without that support they would have been rolled over. Stalin killed millions of Russians himself.
@Jason Culligan: So would Britain have likely collapsed without American support.
@Chris Kirk: The UK had run down it’s military so without the might of US industry supplying the UK it would surely have collapsed & without US boots on the ground the war would have lasted much longer but with the same result simply because the whole empire as was was against them. In those days personnel numbers mattered more than they do today. America was pragmatic during both wars it which kept their industrial wheel turning
@Joe Thorpe: Britains industry was also geared towards the war effort, as was Germany’s industry under government control. Where Britain is concerned D-Day depended on America’s input for ships, hardware and boots on the ground. It would have failed without them.
The USA has circa 160 based worldwide….The Russians have 3… enough said.
@Upowthat Burke:
Russia is the first country since the Second World War to annex the territory of another sovereign state in Europe. Enough said.
Also the US doesn’t have 160 bases worldwide. They are invited by sovereign nations to use said facilities for one reason or another. Generally it’s to protect said nations from expansionism by larger states such as Russia or China.
@Jason Culligan: was it the Russian army who killed hundred of unarmed Irish civilians since the second world war, did the Russian state arm, train, supply information and cover up the bombing of another state. No didn’t think so.
@joe o hare: The IRISH people should RE-Affrim our Neutrality by Referendum if necessary,regardless of our Sellout FF,FG bastions of Democracy think,they would sell their Mothers to slavery for a Lottery Pension..NO to the EU.
@Jason Culligan: The only country to carry out a policy of expansionism is the USA. It doesn’t matter one jot if the yanks were invited or not, a base is a base. And it’s not to protect anyone, it’s to further American expansionist policy.
wtf does Crimea have to do with Irish neutrality
How could you possibly justify voting against this?!
@Eoin Milner:
Very easily actually. In order for us to be fully neutral, we’d need to revoke the RAF’s rights to patrol our airspace. This would mean a necessary expansion of the Irish Air Corps to include a number of fighter jets which could be stationed throughout the country to protect and enforce our own airspace rather than relying on the British to do that for us.
Don’t forget the fact that we’d need to buy quite a few more naval vessels to adequately enforce our territorial waters, rather than relying on the British and French to do that for us. We’d need to set up ammunition plants to supply our forces rather than buying it in from Germany. We’d need to significantly expand our ground forces, possibly including a full draft, to ensure that we have enough soldiers to protect ourselves in the case of a foreign invasion and we’d need the necessary supplies to keep these soldiers in fighting condition.
Without the above at the very least, any claim of neutrality is utterly meaningless.
Where the past is prologue…
I thought this was waterford whispers for a sec. who gave this clod airtime?
An apologist for russia’s invasion of another sovereign nation, which had previously gained independence FROM russia (as ussr) asks us to embrace neutrality and demilitarise – whilst espousing how we gained our OWN independece from another country? Hyprcitical at best.
Also if russia decides it would like galway as an atlantic base, we would let them have it as we would have no military to defend us and as a neutral nation with no partners, we couldnt expect anyone else to help?
You cannot have neutrality WITHOUT the means to defend and enforce it, it would result in a need to MASSIVELY increase defence spending and a renegotiation of our relationships with every other country.
We are fine where we are. more important fish to fry.
Not if the EU wants an EU Army, that will mean we can’t because we are part of the EU. It will be like a state in the US wanting to be neutral, which it can’t and the same can be said about the EU as well.
have your say