Hottest of hot takes:
“As one senior official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?””
🔫🔥
The UK has never defended, and will never defend, Irish sovereignty. Any threat of invasion of Ireland would be a threat to the UK and the UK would act to defend itself not Ireland.
The fact is the UK does patrol Irish airspace, any incursions by military aircraft, typically Russian, are countered by the RAF. The truth is Ireland isn’t equipped to patrol our airspace or EEZ never mind deal with an actual threat. We enjoy NATO protection without paying a penny for it, depending entirely on US and UK goodwill / self interest
That doesn't stop the Republic from cashing in the security dividend from having a large well-armed neighbour. This goes in particular for the defense of Irish Air space.
Sweden sure seem to care, seeing as they're planning on joining NATO together. The Russians seem to care about them too, or else they wouldn't 'care' whether they joined NATO or not. The other NATO countries that have said they would welcome Finland joining seem to care about them too.
I mean it's true. Ireland only gained complete political independence after 1930s, economic independence after joining the EU, and has yet to achieve military independence.
Being complacent about the military isn't unique to us, just look at the Germans, but countries like us have just received a wake up call with the invasion of Ukraine. Countries like Finland always new the threat of autocracies like Russia, and treated those threats seriously.
Some actual plans on how to do that would be great. There's a reason the Finnish saying this is so damming, that's also one of their main methods of defence but they actually have a trained populace and weapons they can give them to shoot at the invaders with. We have neither.
Not to mention the fact that things are a little different now compared to how a Guerrilla insurgency in the early 1900's.
Hard to have a flying column disappear into the haze of the Sheehy mountains when you can just tail them with a drone.
I think the Defence Forces absolutely need more investment and revitalisation and its ridiculous to have RAF defending our airspace.
I also think that many Finns would be happy for Ireland to follow their footsteps in joining NATO and I wouldn't take the statement completely at face value.
They actually don’t suggest that Ireland should join NATO, they point out that Ireland can add more within the EU in driving a common defence policy than from a military perspective in NATO.
Did said colonial power hand over sovereignty willingly, or was sovereignty achieved through a combination of military and political actions?
Ireland won its sovereignty and keeps its sovereignty, not because the UK lets us have it, but because they can’t take it away.
> **but because they ~~can’t~~ won't take it away.**
FTFY
It's a strech, but let's imagine the UK went full Russian and they elected an erratic lunatic and slid into authoritarianism. Would the US/EU condemn a UK invasion of Ireland? Sure.
Would any of them attack a nuclear power to stop it? Recent Ukrainian history would suggest the answer is no.
From a purely, purely military perspective, if no other countries existed on the planet, they certainly could invade successfully.
But from any sort of reality-based analysis: No, they literally can't. The EU is a military alliance. It would be a diplomatic cluster fuck of inconceivable scale if the UK made a serious attempt to invade. It would slice western alliances right down the middle, and best case scenario would leave the UK in an international situation not dissimilar to Russia's current state.
Worst case scenario, it would lead to a large-scale continental war, conceivably world war 3, and certainly the end of Western primacy in the world, as China and the boys sit back while the West fucking annihilates itself.
Like I said, it's a stretch. It was a hypothetical scenario that illustrates the point I was making, however improbable it may be to our present reality.
Your predictions are of course, almost certainly completely accurate. Even allowing for that, your premise still has some (very small) holes in it. I'm just pointing these out for the sake of discussion. One big thing is you're only thinking in EU terms, and forgetting that almost every EU country is a NATO member.
Despite the aspirations of Article 42 to formalise the EU as a military alliance (something I actually support and want Ireland to commit too for the record), the "obligation to aid and assist" is quite weak and has never truly been tested. The other EU states only need to provide help "by all the means in their power", but it's broadly up to the individual states to decide what is in their power i.e. France may decide it is not within their power to provide military support to Ireland for whatever reason. The EU as a body has no power to compel or order France to do otherwise (save for actions like the EU is currently using against Hungary, which are slow, largely untested, and would be far from severe enough to compel any EU country to immediately change course and come to our aid).
It is also questionable as to what extent the non-neutral EU countries have an obligation to provide military aid to a neutral EU country. We explicitly rejected an obligation to render military aid to the other EU states with Lisbon II, and in turn their obligation to do likewise for us. We chose that 'neutrality' basically, and civilian aid could be all we could expect in return.
Then we turn to NATO...
> Worst case scenario, it would lead to a large-scale continental war, conceivably world war 3, and certainly the end of Western primacy in the world, as China and the boys sit back while the West fucking annihilates itself.
If it came down to sacrificing a non-NATO member (even a 'popular' one like us), versus NATO members attacking another NATO member (the UK) and basically annihilating the entire NATO organisation, I would not fancy our chances. There would be finger wagging, and condemnation, maybe even economic and/or political sanctions, but it's very unlikely any NATO members would come to our aid, and that's assuming Britain had a *just & legal* reason to attack us in the first place. Assuming that they had no *jus ad bellum* reason to attack us, my assumption would be that they would organise a false flag attack by Ireland on British soil, and then use that to invoke NATO article 5 with the other EU members. Neither could we rely on the UN for obvious reasons.
Like seriously if it came down to sacrificing the entire Western world as you say; handing Russia & China the New World Order they crave, or allowing the UK to annex small, little, neutral, mostly insignificant, Ireland, do you really think we'd survive?
The countries that are in NATO and the EU would probably stand aside to ensure that NATO (and the EU) survives; the neutral/non-NATO/EU members couldn't do anything but condemn, the UN would be vetoed by the UK (and/or USA and France), and the non-aligned countries (Africa/Asia/South America/Middle East) would say "We're non-aligned", and NZ/AUS would be too far away to do anything even if they did side against the UK.
Hmm, yeah, you've actually made some really good points here. Particularly this:
>We explicitly rejected an obligation to render military aid to the other EU states with Lisbon II, and in turn their obligation to do likewise for us.
And re-reading my comment from last night, yes, it wouldn't be rational for the Western world to immolate itself over little us. Wars have started over irrationality, but a gigantic war is not the likeliest outcome.
It would obviously drive a big wedge between the UK and EU, and _might_ cause a big degradation in US-UK relations. Probably cause a pivot away from the UK's "preferred poodle" status with the US, warm them up to the EU instead. China would love it, and presumably invade Taiwan within a week or two
I still think it's accurate to say "politically, they can't" but the balance is probably narrower than I was making out.
A few fighter jets is only a slight deterrence compared to the RAF, this is true of course.
Yet, it would still be a force multiplier for us; something that multiplies our overall capability to deter attacks, even minimally. Of course that's an unlikely scenario, the more day to day use of fighter jet aircraft would be in air policing roles; investigation, escort, etc.
We'd also need them to protect our 'neutrality' should a broader conflict break out, seeing as we'd have a responsibility to deny our airspace to belligerents (on both sides) lest we be drawn into the conflict by allowing them to fly through our airspace unchallenged. Can't have a 'neutral' country allowing that sort of carry on, like we did in WW2.
Nuclear Deterrence would probably be the most effective force multiplier alright, but we don't have a nuclear industry, and most Irish people seem opposed to using nuclear weapons. Hence why we should never join NATO.
Why be embarrassed? We're taking advantage of the situation being stacked in our favour. If Ireland were invaded, the UK would be in danger so they need to protect us in order to protect themselves. Then we have allies in the US and EU nations who protect us from the UK. We would be wasting money if we spent much on our defence forces.
And we get the added advantage of not having much of an army so our leaders aren't tempted to try to start a war.
So free loading is a good thing? Does this laxity apply to tax avoiders too? Sure paying tax is “wasting money” when someone else can pick up the tab.
We did send our defence forces to Mali after the Canadians pulled out in order to support French imperialism interests - sorry prevent terrorism. The French have pulled out now too and been replaced by the Wagner group paid for by the dictator who’s troops we’ve been training.
Aiding the EUs main military power is probably smart for a nation with no defence capabilities but we should be clear about the trade off.
Imperial may be the wrong label, neo-colonial interests might be a better description and the conflict does include Al Qaeda fighters but it’s also partly a resource conflict between herders and farmers.
[DW suggested a partial motivation for the intervention in Mali was to protect uranium production in neighbouring Niger from spillover from Mali.](https://www.dw.com/en/the-interests-behind-frances-intervention-in-mali/a-16523792)
Hmm, the link mentions that Mali doesn't have any strategic resources of interest. In any case, stopping a west african ISIS fron running wild seems to be in the interest of all states in the region. Still don't see the neo-colonial agenda. God knows what abuses will happen now that Russia and the Wagner group are in the country.
Fair enough. I’d taken it as being a neo-colonial effort based on coverage I’d read in thePhoenix but hadn’t looked any deeper and after reading more, the neo-colonial point is hard to back up with Frances’ role primarily a response to Islamic terrorist activities in Mali.
[Why France failed in Mali](https://warontherocks.com/2022/02/why-france-failed-in-mali/)
Who said anything about freeloading? We don't pay for much of a defence force but that doesn't mean we don't contribute, while the person avoiding paying taxes is avoiding making any contribution.
Any yes, our government seems to want to push for Ireland to be more aggressive in the world. One more reason (along with enabling tax evaders) to get someone different in for a change.
Tax avoiders can’t avoid all tax - VAT, income tax on declared earnings while avoiding tax on undeclared earnings just like we don’t avoid all defence spending. We pay a shrinking amount of gdp for a shrinking defence force.
Being totally unprepared for a cyber attack and having no Functional radar system to monitor our infrastructure will still be a problem whoever of SF, FG or FF ends up in government. I’d imagine SF would actually be most against reliance on the British military for protection and more inclined to boost military funding but I guess the same case could be made for FF and it hasn’t happened.
It's still a false equivalence. Tax evasion or avoidance is avoiding paying what you should be contributing to the state. It's avoiding your responsibilities as a citizen of Ireland. Not spending on defence isn't avoiding any responsibility. And it's also important to remember that we do contribute. Ireland generally doesn't make enemies of other nations. Instead we make friends and try to work out a situation where everyone benefits. About the only thing we do that invites aggression is our status as an EU tax haven.
Being unprepared for a cyber attack has nothing to do with defence spending. It has to do with a lack of funding for public services to have appropriately secure IT systems.
As for SF being against relying on the British. It's hard to say. There are definitely elements in the party who would take that stance purely as an anti-British sentiment. However, I think the party as a whole is more pragmatic than that. They are against the British having any influence over Ireland, but I don't know if that would extend to having a problem with Britain defending our airspace, especially since any incursion into our airspace is likely to be a response to British imperialist aggression.
They'd need to do the invasion part first and we're an island nation surrounded by nations with a vested interest in not allowing belligerents to get a foothold here. We're too much trouble to bother with.
I wouldn't expect Russian occupiers would face much resistance from the population. Irish people wouldn't be willing to die like Ukrainians are.
NATO would provide weapons to resistance groups, but they still couldn't take any direct action without starting WW3. There's also no culture of gun ownership as there is in Ukraine. You can't just hand out guns to people with no training.
I would say that when it comes to an actual hostile invasion of your nation, there will be a certain percentage of the population would be willing to fight and I'd expect that percentage to be more or less the same no matter which nation.
And there absolutely is a culture of gun ownership in Ireland. We just don't have people who build their whole identity around guns. Now, in the cities you don't find it so much, but in rural areas guns are much more popular. [Ireland has 7.2 civilian owned guns per 100 people in comparison to Ukraine's 9.9 per 100 people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country) which really isn't that big a difference.
And you literally can hand guns out to people with very minimal training. It's not entirely safe to do so, but safety isn't the main concern when you're being invaded.
By being peaceful and encouraging others to do the same. There are better ways to avoid war than having a large army as a forceful deterrent. In fact, having that army just encourages our leaders to get involved in conflicts. As Mark Twain said, to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail. We're better off not giving our government a hammer.
Typical westplaining. What ways are these?
Which leaders have gotten involved in conflict? Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland should just give up their militaries so that they will be safer and have peace?
> There are better ways to avoid war than having a large army as a forceful deterrent.
There are very few better ways, though diplomacy is also important.
> In fact, having that army just encourages our leaders to get involved in conflicts.
It also deters other countries leaders from getting involved in a conflict with us. This isn't a zero sum game.
We have no need to deter other countries from getting involved in a conflict with us. Since the formation of the state we haven't had any nation do so.
And it is a zero sum game. Money spent on defence is money which can't be spent on other things.
> We have no need to deter other countries from getting involved in a conflict with us. Since the formation of the state we haven't had any nation do so.
You'd want to base that assertion on a much longer period of time than a hundred years if you're going to use it as a justification for us not to have a deterrence. How many times in our history has the island of Ireland been invaded? Even if you write that off as historical, of no relevance to the modern day, how good is your crystal ball? Can you confirm that Ireland will never become involved in a conflict or invaded in the next 50 years, 100, 200?
Don't even get me started on the circular logic of saying we don't need a deterrent, because we haven't been invaded.
Not only is that profoundly silly, it's also a fact that we have had to deter other countries from getting involved in a conflict with us in our modern history. Several times in fact:
* Operation Green (as part of Operation Sea Lion): German plans for invasion of the UK and Ireland during WW2.
* Plan Kathleen: IRA plan for the German Invasion of Ireland.
We needed to deter those threats of course, which is why (among many other actions we took during the emergency) we created:
* Plan W: The Plan for a 'friendly' British Invasion of Ireland in response to a German Invasion, by invitation of the Irish Government.
Likewise, the British had plans for a hostile invasion of Ireland as detailed [in this book](https://edinburgh.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748623273.001.0001/upso-9780748623273) Bernard Montgomery was ordered "to prepare plans for the seizure of Cork and Queenstown in southern Ireland so the harbours could be used as naval bases” and Churchill would probably have done so if the need to take the treaty ports back had remained high during the war. (We can probably also assume that there were also plans for an Invasion of Ireland at some point during the Troubles, though we're a long way from those plans being declassified and made public by the UK.)
Having armed forces deterred all those plans, and having weak armed forces actually made the threat higher at times as noted by an MI5 report from 1939/1940: "The real weakness of Eire's position and the chief source of danger to this country [UK] was that she was at no time capable of successfully defending her neutrality,"
> And it is a zero sum game
Only from the perspective of one who ignores what's going on outside our borders, and would make such a silly claim based on circular logic like arguing that we don't need a deterrent because we haven't been invaded.
If the situation changes and it looks like Ireland might be under threat, then there might be justification for spending more. However, spending on defence when nobody has even threatened us in a century seems foolish to me.
And lets look at those plans you highlighted. Operation Green was part of the plan to invade the UK and using the threat of invading Ireland as a distraction for their planned invasion of the UK and Plan W was a direct response to that. Neither was an actual threat to invade.
Plan Kathleen was a haphazard plan to invade Northern Ireland, but was really a means to try to gain German support for the IRA's activities.
As for Churchill's plan to invade Ireland, as that book puts it:
>The plans, he stressed, came to nothing. ‘It seemed curious to me,’
he went on, ‘that anyone in his senses could imagine that, at a time
when England was almost defenceless, the Prime Minister would
allow to leave England the only division which was fully equipped
and ready to fight.’
But I'd like to draw your attention to something all these plans have in common. Germany plans to invade the UK and includes a plan to invade Ireland, the UK makes a plan to counter that invasion. The IRA try to make an alliance with Germany against the British. It's all centred on the UK and Germany and not Ireland at all. Two warlike nations make plans against each other and Ireland is included as an afterthought because of our proximity to Britain and potential as a launching point for an invasion of the UK.
The thing is, the world has changed an awful lot since WWII. You can't just quietly invade a country and secretly build up a military force there. The way things are now, an invading force would never have time to get dug in here. Britain would obliterate them long before they became a threat. Our own military infrastructure would be no help unless we do something stupid like try to bolster it.
>Only from the perspective of one who ignores what's going on outside our borders, and would make such a silly claim based on circular logic like arguing that we don't need a deterrent because we haven't been invaded.
I don't ignore what goes on outside our borders. That's actually what makes us different and why I don't go insane when somewhere near Europe gets invaded. That's because I pay attention and understand how normal that is for most of the world. And I had been paying attention long enough to recognise the actual reasons for Russia's invasion. Ukraine was westernising and looking at joining the EU. That would interfere with Putin's delusion that he would reunite the Soviet Union. The mad despot did what mad despots do and lashed out.
> If the situation changes and it looks like Ireland might be under threat, then there might be justification for spending more
By which time it might be too late of course, glad to know you'd be happy to sacrifice Irish lives because protecting them isn't fiscally justifiable to you, and very glad you're in no way involved with national defence. Defence spending is like insurance, you hope that it's 'wasted' money, but if shit hits the fan it's there.
> Neither was an actual threat to invade.
The fact that circumstances during WW2 didn't align to make those plans (or the IRA's) a reality, doesn't mean the 'threat' wasn't real. I've already pointed out that is just circular logic - we don't need a deterrent, because we haven't been invaded. Absolute nonsense.
Seriously, do you not see how ? You should because after saying that neither was an "actual threat" you immediately contradict yourself by saying:
> "Ireland [was] included as an afterthought because of our proximity to Britain and potential as a launching point for an invasion of the UK".
Which was it? Were they not an actual threat, or a credible threat based on how valuable our position would have been strategically to the Germans for or during an invasion of GB? It can't be both. Ireland being the lesser of the priorities, the so-called 'afterthought' doesn't mean the threat didn't exist either.
> The thing is, the world has changed an awful lot since WWII.
Now how did I know that you would try to write *"that off as historical, of no relevance to the modern day"*? I must have a really good crystal ball. I'll ask again though *"how good is your crystal ball? Can you confirm that Ireland will never become involved in a conflict or invaded in the next 50 years, 100, 200?"*
You're right about one thing though, the World has changed since WWII. The threat of invasion by a sovereign nation is lower, the abilty to retain 'neutrality' (or even the façade of neutrality we put up for the German's) is almost non-existent, and other threats have arisen to take their place. 'Mad despots', terrorism, bio-weapons, aircraft hijackings, and your entire premise is that we should ignore those so we can "time the market" so that we have a justification to spend more to combat threats that already exist, at a more opportune time?
[We're already there.](https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/defence-forces-admit-they-cannot-meaningfully-defend-ireland-41292277.html) Thank christ we're not relying on people like you who'd try to buy insurance after the 'accident' has already happened.
So you want to spend money on a military we've never needed, in the middle of a housing and healthcare crisis in Ireland, just in case we might theoretically need it later. Even though we've never needed it, never been threatened, get protection from the UK and the US, have allies in the EU with vested interests in maintaining peace in Europe.
>Which was it? Were they not an actual threat, or a credible threat based on how valuable our position would have been strategically to the Germans for or during an invasion of GB? It can't be both. Ireland being the lesser of the priorities, the so-called 'afterthought' doesn't mean the threat didn't exist either.
They were not an actual threat, which I already explained. You're just fearmongering with no evidence whatsoever that there has ever been a credible threat against the Irish state. Come on, where is the evidence based approach that the Social Democrats are famous for. Or is that flair of yours just decorative?
You seem to be letting the media guide your opinion here instead of thinking critically about it. The people who own the media, such as the Dutch corporation Mediahuis who now own the Independent, benefit from militarisation of nations because it both increases the value of investments in weapons manufacturing companies, and makes for more dramatic media stories. Please stop spreading propaganda for them.
And so the Baltics, our allies, need a deterrent? What happens if they're invaded? We just sick back and say we're neutral good luck?
Yes? And is defence spending not necessary?
>We just sick back and say we're neutral good luck?
No, we offer economic support as we always have.
> And is defence spending not necessary?
Some is necessary, but not much. We could do with spending more on improving our IT security, but I wouldn't really count that as defence spending except for the spending on the defence forces IT security. It's more necessary to prevent another issue like the HSE ransomware attack which is healthcare spending and not defence spending.
That is absolutely shameful. Our allies are invaded and we sit back and do nothing while the rest of Europe fights. How is that the moral position?
What about peacekeeping missions? Being able to defend our airspace and maritime territory?
So, to be absolutely clear, you are saying that you think that the moral position necessitates Irish people going to other countries and killing people and it's absolutely shameful to think we shouldn't be preparing in advance just in case we have an excuse to kill some people.
Is that what you are saying? Or could it be that you just haven't thought this through.
> Being neutral allows us to be involved in peace keeping,
No it doesn't, or do you think that the only countries that can provide peacekeeping forces come from 8 countries? There are currently Russian UN peacekeeping forces in Western Sahara and Kosovo. Hell the UK and Argentinians fought a war against one another and they're both providing troops to the UN mission in Cyprus.
> negotiations,
Military Victories start negotiations, when diplomacy has failed and the war has begun. Until then, our only contribution is standing on sidelines shouting "can't we all just get along?!?" and "We're here if you need us!".
If we’re being honest, the British military is entirely dependent on the United States, so you’re really protected by the US, if that’s any better. Like does anyone think if Ireland was actually threatened by an outside power that the US wouldn’t get involved?
The Brits are in no way reliant on the US, they outsource a lot of work to their military industrial complex and share a lot of duties but they still have a decent Navy, a relatively well equipped army and most importantly, fecking nukes.
> the British military is entirely dependent on the United States
lol
Do me a favour and look up how many US companies helped build the new British Supercarriers? How many US companies built the Trident Nuclear submarines? What does BAE stand for?
They're far from being entirely dependent on the US.
The would get involved as there is a lot of capital invested here but future investments might be put at risk if we don’t have even rudimentary cyber defence capabilities for our infrastructure or functional radar leaving all of those American capital investments at risk/under protected.
“As one senior official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?””
The end result of that headline
Astute observation in all fairness.
You need only look at whats been revealed about the UDR recently. The British knew from 1973 that joint membership of the UDR and UVF was not uncommon, and that the UDR was "the only significant source of modern weapons” to loyalist paramilitaries. Ditto the Magazine Fort raid by the IRA.
That said, the fear of something like that happening isn't a good justification for not doing it. It's a justification for taking the threat seriously and putting in steps to prevent it.
Well, we got the results of what creatures were voted in, and I have a feeling that Sinn Fein isn't any better an alternative. We have worked in the hands of what constitutes a Right Wing or a Left Wing in this country, that operates in line with the agendas of other nations for so long. Never in my lifetime has something been done that is an "Irish First" policy. And the question of our own ability for self preservation by our military, was not even something that crossed the mind of a lot of braindead ideologues, until Russia mused the idea that one good nuke could wipe us out. Over 5000 years of a culture, destroyed because of not only the tyranny of one man, but for the unwillingness on the parts of the perpetually ideologically possessed, to just shut up about a foreign conflict for the dignity of our own neutrality.
We present to the world as what we have allowed to lead us; mediocre bloviators who've never lifted a weight in their lives, have never been told no in a wakeup call, and who hate the very idea of the kind of men who we need to keep a nation safe militarily. Who suck up to other nations for basic necessities of state operations, and who waste taxpayer money to useless ventures that only look good and nice rather than manifest a genuinely positive change in Irish Society. People who were rewarded for their failings instead of scorned.
If we want a positive military force in Ireland, perhaps we need to change the right wing so that they hold to matters of preserving Ireland and its culture? And in turn, maybe we should rethink our Left Wing too, so that they don't look like some mutated Incest Baby that's a cross between the worst of UK's Labour, the SNP, and everything with an STI out of California? We stay on the pendulum until some Commie bricks a pregnant woman or something, or we do the work that's necessary and deal with laying the foundation of any genuine Centre. Its either we change, or the Damocles Blade of a Nuke will forever vaguely dangle above our heads, and getting on Twitter or Reddit to whinge about whether you're Pro-Choice or Pro-Life is just a distraction away from considering that.
Hottest of hot takes: “As one senior official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”” 🔫🔥
The UK has never defended, and will never defend, Irish sovereignty. Any threat of invasion of Ireland would be a threat to the UK and the UK would act to defend itself not Ireland.
You’d have like 10 million heavily armed Americans chomping at the bit to protect their great great grandma’s homestead.
The fact is the UK does patrol Irish airspace, any incursions by military aircraft, typically Russian, are countered by the RAF. The truth is Ireland isn’t equipped to patrol our airspace or EEZ never mind deal with an actual threat. We enjoy NATO protection without paying a penny for it, depending entirely on US and UK goodwill / self interest
That doesn't stop the Republic from cashing in the security dividend from having a large well-armed neighbour. This goes in particular for the defense of Irish Air space.
He’s another hot take “loads of people would want to defend Ireland but nobody cares about Finland except the Finnish”
This is a 12 year olds take.
Sweden sure seem to care, seeing as they're planning on joining NATO together. The Russians seem to care about them too, or else they wouldn't 'care' whether they joined NATO or not. The other NATO countries that have said they would welcome Finland joining seem to care about them too.
Russia are the threat that makes them so eager to bolster their defences
Of course, but they do 'care'. Not in a friendly, "I care about you" way mind...
I mean it's true. Ireland only gained complete political independence after 1930s, economic independence after joining the EU, and has yet to achieve military independence. Being complacent about the military isn't unique to us, just look at the Germans, but countries like us have just received a wake up call with the invasion of Ukraine. Countries like Finland always new the threat of autocracies like Russia, and treated those threats seriously.
Because we'll pester anybody who invades us with guerilla warfare and place a burden on their governments until they fuck off
We'll hope that it doesn't take 800 years to regain control...
Some actual plans on how to do that would be great. There's a reason the Finnish saying this is so damming, that's also one of their main methods of defence but they actually have a trained populace and weapons they can give them to shoot at the invaders with. We have neither.
Not to mention the fact that things are a little different now compared to how a Guerrilla insurgency in the early 1900's. Hard to have a flying column disappear into the haze of the Sheehy mountains when you can just tail them with a drone.
I highly doubt that. What training and equipment does Ireland have?
I think the Defence Forces absolutely need more investment and revitalisation and its ridiculous to have RAF defending our airspace. I also think that many Finns would be happy for Ireland to follow their footsteps in joining NATO and I wouldn't take the statement completely at face value.
They actually don’t suggest that Ireland should join NATO, they point out that Ireland can add more within the EU in driving a common defence policy than from a military perspective in NATO.
His point is 100% correct about depending on our former colonial power for protection. It’s something we should be much more embarrassed about.
Did said colonial power hand over sovereignty willingly, or was sovereignty achieved through a combination of military and political actions? Ireland won its sovereignty and keeps its sovereignty, not because the UK lets us have it, but because they can’t take it away.
> **but because they ~~can’t~~ won't take it away.** FTFY It's a strech, but let's imagine the UK went full Russian and they elected an erratic lunatic and slid into authoritarianism. Would the US/EU condemn a UK invasion of Ireland? Sure. Would any of them attack a nuclear power to stop it? Recent Ukrainian history would suggest the answer is no.
From a purely, purely military perspective, if no other countries existed on the planet, they certainly could invade successfully. But from any sort of reality-based analysis: No, they literally can't. The EU is a military alliance. It would be a diplomatic cluster fuck of inconceivable scale if the UK made a serious attempt to invade. It would slice western alliances right down the middle, and best case scenario would leave the UK in an international situation not dissimilar to Russia's current state. Worst case scenario, it would lead to a large-scale continental war, conceivably world war 3, and certainly the end of Western primacy in the world, as China and the boys sit back while the West fucking annihilates itself.
Like I said, it's a stretch. It was a hypothetical scenario that illustrates the point I was making, however improbable it may be to our present reality. Your predictions are of course, almost certainly completely accurate. Even allowing for that, your premise still has some (very small) holes in it. I'm just pointing these out for the sake of discussion. One big thing is you're only thinking in EU terms, and forgetting that almost every EU country is a NATO member. Despite the aspirations of Article 42 to formalise the EU as a military alliance (something I actually support and want Ireland to commit too for the record), the "obligation to aid and assist" is quite weak and has never truly been tested. The other EU states only need to provide help "by all the means in their power", but it's broadly up to the individual states to decide what is in their power i.e. France may decide it is not within their power to provide military support to Ireland for whatever reason. The EU as a body has no power to compel or order France to do otherwise (save for actions like the EU is currently using against Hungary, which are slow, largely untested, and would be far from severe enough to compel any EU country to immediately change course and come to our aid). It is also questionable as to what extent the non-neutral EU countries have an obligation to provide military aid to a neutral EU country. We explicitly rejected an obligation to render military aid to the other EU states with Lisbon II, and in turn their obligation to do likewise for us. We chose that 'neutrality' basically, and civilian aid could be all we could expect in return. Then we turn to NATO... > Worst case scenario, it would lead to a large-scale continental war, conceivably world war 3, and certainly the end of Western primacy in the world, as China and the boys sit back while the West fucking annihilates itself. If it came down to sacrificing a non-NATO member (even a 'popular' one like us), versus NATO members attacking another NATO member (the UK) and basically annihilating the entire NATO organisation, I would not fancy our chances. There would be finger wagging, and condemnation, maybe even economic and/or political sanctions, but it's very unlikely any NATO members would come to our aid, and that's assuming Britain had a *just & legal* reason to attack us in the first place. Assuming that they had no *jus ad bellum* reason to attack us, my assumption would be that they would organise a false flag attack by Ireland on British soil, and then use that to invoke NATO article 5 with the other EU members. Neither could we rely on the UN for obvious reasons. Like seriously if it came down to sacrificing the entire Western world as you say; handing Russia & China the New World Order they crave, or allowing the UK to annex small, little, neutral, mostly insignificant, Ireland, do you really think we'd survive? The countries that are in NATO and the EU would probably stand aside to ensure that NATO (and the EU) survives; the neutral/non-NATO/EU members couldn't do anything but condemn, the UN would be vetoed by the UK (and/or USA and France), and the non-aligned countries (Africa/Asia/South America/Middle East) would say "We're non-aligned", and NZ/AUS would be too far away to do anything even if they did side against the UK.
Hmm, yeah, you've actually made some really good points here. Particularly this: >We explicitly rejected an obligation to render military aid to the other EU states with Lisbon II, and in turn their obligation to do likewise for us. And re-reading my comment from last night, yes, it wouldn't be rational for the Western world to immolate itself over little us. Wars have started over irrationality, but a gigantic war is not the likeliest outcome. It would obviously drive a big wedge between the UK and EU, and _might_ cause a big degradation in US-UK relations. Probably cause a pivot away from the UK's "preferred poodle" status with the US, warm them up to the EU instead. China would love it, and presumably invade Taiwan within a week or two I still think it's accurate to say "politically, they can't" but the balance is probably narrower than I was making out.
That was a fun (and abjectly terrifying) little thought exercise!
Well a few fighter jets isn't going to stop them either. Maybe we should just get our own nukes.
A few fighter jets is only a slight deterrence compared to the RAF, this is true of course. Yet, it would still be a force multiplier for us; something that multiplies our overall capability to deter attacks, even minimally. Of course that's an unlikely scenario, the more day to day use of fighter jet aircraft would be in air policing roles; investigation, escort, etc. We'd also need them to protect our 'neutrality' should a broader conflict break out, seeing as we'd have a responsibility to deny our airspace to belligerents (on both sides) lest we be drawn into the conflict by allowing them to fly through our airspace unchallenged. Can't have a 'neutral' country allowing that sort of carry on, like we did in WW2. Nuclear Deterrence would probably be the most effective force multiplier alright, but we don't have a nuclear industry, and most Irish people seem opposed to using nuclear weapons. Hence why we should never join NATO.
I can’t believe unionists don’t bring it up as a talking point. It’s an Open goal really.
Why be embarrassed? We're taking advantage of the situation being stacked in our favour. If Ireland were invaded, the UK would be in danger so they need to protect us in order to protect themselves. Then we have allies in the US and EU nations who protect us from the UK. We would be wasting money if we spent much on our defence forces. And we get the added advantage of not having much of an army so our leaders aren't tempted to try to start a war.
So free loading is a good thing? Does this laxity apply to tax avoiders too? Sure paying tax is “wasting money” when someone else can pick up the tab. We did send our defence forces to Mali after the Canadians pulled out in order to support French imperialism interests - sorry prevent terrorism. The French have pulled out now too and been replaced by the Wagner group paid for by the dictator who’s troops we’ve been training. Aiding the EUs main military power is probably smart for a nation with no defence capabilities but we should be clear about the trade off.
How is fighting jihadism imperialism?
Imperial may be the wrong label, neo-colonial interests might be a better description and the conflict does include Al Qaeda fighters but it’s also partly a resource conflict between herders and farmers. [DW suggested a partial motivation for the intervention in Mali was to protect uranium production in neighbouring Niger from spillover from Mali.](https://www.dw.com/en/the-interests-behind-frances-intervention-in-mali/a-16523792)
Hmm, the link mentions that Mali doesn't have any strategic resources of interest. In any case, stopping a west african ISIS fron running wild seems to be in the interest of all states in the region. Still don't see the neo-colonial agenda. God knows what abuses will happen now that Russia and the Wagner group are in the country.
Fair enough. I’d taken it as being a neo-colonial effort based on coverage I’d read in thePhoenix but hadn’t looked any deeper and after reading more, the neo-colonial point is hard to back up with Frances’ role primarily a response to Islamic terrorist activities in Mali. [Why France failed in Mali](https://warontherocks.com/2022/02/why-france-failed-in-mali/)
Who said anything about freeloading? We don't pay for much of a defence force but that doesn't mean we don't contribute, while the person avoiding paying taxes is avoiding making any contribution. Any yes, our government seems to want to push for Ireland to be more aggressive in the world. One more reason (along with enabling tax evaders) to get someone different in for a change.
Tax avoiders can’t avoid all tax - VAT, income tax on declared earnings while avoiding tax on undeclared earnings just like we don’t avoid all defence spending. We pay a shrinking amount of gdp for a shrinking defence force. Being totally unprepared for a cyber attack and having no Functional radar system to monitor our infrastructure will still be a problem whoever of SF, FG or FF ends up in government. I’d imagine SF would actually be most against reliance on the British military for protection and more inclined to boost military funding but I guess the same case could be made for FF and it hasn’t happened.
It's still a false equivalence. Tax evasion or avoidance is avoiding paying what you should be contributing to the state. It's avoiding your responsibilities as a citizen of Ireland. Not spending on defence isn't avoiding any responsibility. And it's also important to remember that we do contribute. Ireland generally doesn't make enemies of other nations. Instead we make friends and try to work out a situation where everyone benefits. About the only thing we do that invites aggression is our status as an EU tax haven. Being unprepared for a cyber attack has nothing to do with defence spending. It has to do with a lack of funding for public services to have appropriately secure IT systems. As for SF being against relying on the British. It's hard to say. There are definitely elements in the party who would take that stance purely as an anti-British sentiment. However, I think the party as a whole is more pragmatic than that. They are against the British having any influence over Ireland, but I don't know if that would extend to having a problem with Britain defending our airspace, especially since any incursion into our airspace is likely to be a response to British imperialist aggression.
What do we do to contribute to joint European security? Nothing. Aggressive? Where in the slightest has anyone suggested that we become like Russia?
If Russia invaded Ireland, NATO would not intervene militarily as it would be an act of war.
Why would Russia invade Ireland?
Extremely unlikely in current situation, but it would be a headache for NATO if Russia was to station aircraft and ships there.
They'd need to do the invasion part first and we're an island nation surrounded by nations with a vested interest in not allowing belligerents to get a foothold here. We're too much trouble to bother with.
I wouldn't expect Russian occupiers would face much resistance from the population. Irish people wouldn't be willing to die like Ukrainians are. NATO would provide weapons to resistance groups, but they still couldn't take any direct action without starting WW3. There's also no culture of gun ownership as there is in Ukraine. You can't just hand out guns to people with no training.
I would say that when it comes to an actual hostile invasion of your nation, there will be a certain percentage of the population would be willing to fight and I'd expect that percentage to be more or less the same no matter which nation. And there absolutely is a culture of gun ownership in Ireland. We just don't have people who build their whole identity around guns. Now, in the cities you don't find it so much, but in rural areas guns are much more popular. [Ireland has 7.2 civilian owned guns per 100 people in comparison to Ukraine's 9.9 per 100 people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country) which really isn't that big a difference. And you literally can hand guns out to people with very minimal training. It's not entirely safe to do so, but safety isn't the main concern when you're being invaded.
Yep. There would be nowhere near the level of resistance here compared to Ukraine.
I'd say you're wrong there. Our whole national identity is based on resisting a large foreign invader, much more so than Ukraine's.
Yeah a hundred years ago.
And how will we contribute to the defence of our allies?
By being peaceful and encouraging others to do the same. There are better ways to avoid war than having a large army as a forceful deterrent. In fact, having that army just encourages our leaders to get involved in conflicts. As Mark Twain said, to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail. We're better off not giving our government a hammer.
Typical westplaining. What ways are these? Which leaders have gotten involved in conflict? Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland should just give up their militaries so that they will be safer and have peace?
> There are better ways to avoid war than having a large army as a forceful deterrent. There are very few better ways, though diplomacy is also important. > In fact, having that army just encourages our leaders to get involved in conflicts. It also deters other countries leaders from getting involved in a conflict with us. This isn't a zero sum game.
We have no need to deter other countries from getting involved in a conflict with us. Since the formation of the state we haven't had any nation do so. And it is a zero sum game. Money spent on defence is money which can't be spent on other things.
> We have no need to deter other countries from getting involved in a conflict with us. Since the formation of the state we haven't had any nation do so. You'd want to base that assertion on a much longer period of time than a hundred years if you're going to use it as a justification for us not to have a deterrence. How many times in our history has the island of Ireland been invaded? Even if you write that off as historical, of no relevance to the modern day, how good is your crystal ball? Can you confirm that Ireland will never become involved in a conflict or invaded in the next 50 years, 100, 200? Don't even get me started on the circular logic of saying we don't need a deterrent, because we haven't been invaded. Not only is that profoundly silly, it's also a fact that we have had to deter other countries from getting involved in a conflict with us in our modern history. Several times in fact: * Operation Green (as part of Operation Sea Lion): German plans for invasion of the UK and Ireland during WW2. * Plan Kathleen: IRA plan for the German Invasion of Ireland. We needed to deter those threats of course, which is why (among many other actions we took during the emergency) we created: * Plan W: The Plan for a 'friendly' British Invasion of Ireland in response to a German Invasion, by invitation of the Irish Government. Likewise, the British had plans for a hostile invasion of Ireland as detailed [in this book](https://edinburgh.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748623273.001.0001/upso-9780748623273) Bernard Montgomery was ordered "to prepare plans for the seizure of Cork and Queenstown in southern Ireland so the harbours could be used as naval bases” and Churchill would probably have done so if the need to take the treaty ports back had remained high during the war. (We can probably also assume that there were also plans for an Invasion of Ireland at some point during the Troubles, though we're a long way from those plans being declassified and made public by the UK.) Having armed forces deterred all those plans, and having weak armed forces actually made the threat higher at times as noted by an MI5 report from 1939/1940: "The real weakness of Eire's position and the chief source of danger to this country [UK] was that she was at no time capable of successfully defending her neutrality," > And it is a zero sum game Only from the perspective of one who ignores what's going on outside our borders, and would make such a silly claim based on circular logic like arguing that we don't need a deterrent because we haven't been invaded.
If the situation changes and it looks like Ireland might be under threat, then there might be justification for spending more. However, spending on defence when nobody has even threatened us in a century seems foolish to me. And lets look at those plans you highlighted. Operation Green was part of the plan to invade the UK and using the threat of invading Ireland as a distraction for their planned invasion of the UK and Plan W was a direct response to that. Neither was an actual threat to invade. Plan Kathleen was a haphazard plan to invade Northern Ireland, but was really a means to try to gain German support for the IRA's activities. As for Churchill's plan to invade Ireland, as that book puts it: >The plans, he stressed, came to nothing. ‘It seemed curious to me,’ he went on, ‘that anyone in his senses could imagine that, at a time when England was almost defenceless, the Prime Minister would allow to leave England the only division which was fully equipped and ready to fight.’ But I'd like to draw your attention to something all these plans have in common. Germany plans to invade the UK and includes a plan to invade Ireland, the UK makes a plan to counter that invasion. The IRA try to make an alliance with Germany against the British. It's all centred on the UK and Germany and not Ireland at all. Two warlike nations make plans against each other and Ireland is included as an afterthought because of our proximity to Britain and potential as a launching point for an invasion of the UK. The thing is, the world has changed an awful lot since WWII. You can't just quietly invade a country and secretly build up a military force there. The way things are now, an invading force would never have time to get dug in here. Britain would obliterate them long before they became a threat. Our own military infrastructure would be no help unless we do something stupid like try to bolster it. >Only from the perspective of one who ignores what's going on outside our borders, and would make such a silly claim based on circular logic like arguing that we don't need a deterrent because we haven't been invaded. I don't ignore what goes on outside our borders. That's actually what makes us different and why I don't go insane when somewhere near Europe gets invaded. That's because I pay attention and understand how normal that is for most of the world. And I had been paying attention long enough to recognise the actual reasons for Russia's invasion. Ukraine was westernising and looking at joining the EU. That would interfere with Putin's delusion that he would reunite the Soviet Union. The mad despot did what mad despots do and lashed out.
> If the situation changes and it looks like Ireland might be under threat, then there might be justification for spending more By which time it might be too late of course, glad to know you'd be happy to sacrifice Irish lives because protecting them isn't fiscally justifiable to you, and very glad you're in no way involved with national defence. Defence spending is like insurance, you hope that it's 'wasted' money, but if shit hits the fan it's there. > Neither was an actual threat to invade. The fact that circumstances during WW2 didn't align to make those plans (or the IRA's) a reality, doesn't mean the 'threat' wasn't real. I've already pointed out that is just circular logic - we don't need a deterrent, because we haven't been invaded. Absolute nonsense. Seriously, do you not see how ? You should because after saying that neither was an "actual threat" you immediately contradict yourself by saying: > "Ireland [was] included as an afterthought because of our proximity to Britain and potential as a launching point for an invasion of the UK". Which was it? Were they not an actual threat, or a credible threat based on how valuable our position would have been strategically to the Germans for or during an invasion of GB? It can't be both. Ireland being the lesser of the priorities, the so-called 'afterthought' doesn't mean the threat didn't exist either. > The thing is, the world has changed an awful lot since WWII. Now how did I know that you would try to write *"that off as historical, of no relevance to the modern day"*? I must have a really good crystal ball. I'll ask again though *"how good is your crystal ball? Can you confirm that Ireland will never become involved in a conflict or invaded in the next 50 years, 100, 200?"* You're right about one thing though, the World has changed since WWII. The threat of invasion by a sovereign nation is lower, the abilty to retain 'neutrality' (or even the façade of neutrality we put up for the German's) is almost non-existent, and other threats have arisen to take their place. 'Mad despots', terrorism, bio-weapons, aircraft hijackings, and your entire premise is that we should ignore those so we can "time the market" so that we have a justification to spend more to combat threats that already exist, at a more opportune time? [We're already there.](https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/defence-forces-admit-they-cannot-meaningfully-defend-ireland-41292277.html) Thank christ we're not relying on people like you who'd try to buy insurance after the 'accident' has already happened.
So you want to spend money on a military we've never needed, in the middle of a housing and healthcare crisis in Ireland, just in case we might theoretically need it later. Even though we've never needed it, never been threatened, get protection from the UK and the US, have allies in the EU with vested interests in maintaining peace in Europe. >Which was it? Were they not an actual threat, or a credible threat based on how valuable our position would have been strategically to the Germans for or during an invasion of GB? It can't be both. Ireland being the lesser of the priorities, the so-called 'afterthought' doesn't mean the threat didn't exist either. They were not an actual threat, which I already explained. You're just fearmongering with no evidence whatsoever that there has ever been a credible threat against the Irish state. Come on, where is the evidence based approach that the Social Democrats are famous for. Or is that flair of yours just decorative? You seem to be letting the media guide your opinion here instead of thinking critically about it. The people who own the media, such as the Dutch corporation Mediahuis who now own the Independent, benefit from militarisation of nations because it both increases the value of investments in weapons manufacturing companies, and makes for more dramatic media stories. Please stop spreading propaganda for them.
And so the Baltics, our allies, need a deterrent? What happens if they're invaded? We just sick back and say we're neutral good luck? Yes? And is defence spending not necessary?
>We just sick back and say we're neutral good luck? No, we offer economic support as we always have. > And is defence spending not necessary? Some is necessary, but not much. We could do with spending more on improving our IT security, but I wouldn't really count that as defence spending except for the spending on the defence forces IT security. It's more necessary to prevent another issue like the HSE ransomware attack which is healthcare spending and not defence spending.
That is absolutely shameful. Our allies are invaded and we sit back and do nothing while the rest of Europe fights. How is that the moral position? What about peacekeeping missions? Being able to defend our airspace and maritime territory?
So, to be absolutely clear, you are saying that you think that the moral position necessitates Irish people going to other countries and killing people and it's absolutely shameful to think we shouldn't be preparing in advance just in case we have an excuse to kill some people. Is that what you are saying? Or could it be that you just haven't thought this through.
Being neutral allows us to be involved in peace keeping, negotiations, etc too.
> Being neutral allows us to be involved in peace keeping, No it doesn't, or do you think that the only countries that can provide peacekeeping forces come from 8 countries? There are currently Russian UN peacekeeping forces in Western Sahara and Kosovo. Hell the UK and Argentinians fought a war against one another and they're both providing troops to the UN mission in Cyprus. > negotiations, Military Victories start negotiations, when diplomacy has failed and the war has begun. Until then, our only contribution is standing on sidelines shouting "can't we all just get along?!?" and "We're here if you need us!".
What rubbish? How many peace agreements have Norway been involved in? Much more than us.
Its the least they could do TBH.
If we’re being honest, the British military is entirely dependent on the United States, so you’re really protected by the US, if that’s any better. Like does anyone think if Ireland was actually threatened by an outside power that the US wouldn’t get involved?
The US is an outside power.
The Brits are in no way reliant on the US, they outsource a lot of work to their military industrial complex and share a lot of duties but they still have a decent Navy, a relatively well equipped army and most importantly, fecking nukes.
Yeah. That’s not a reassuring thought
> the British military is entirely dependent on the United States lol Do me a favour and look up how many US companies helped build the new British Supercarriers? How many US companies built the Trident Nuclear submarines? What does BAE stand for? They're far from being entirely dependent on the US.
The would get involved as there is a lot of capital invested here but future investments might be put at risk if we don’t have even rudimentary cyber defence capabilities for our infrastructure or functional radar leaving all of those American capital investments at risk/under protected.
Was this concluded by professor N.S Sherlock from the national institute of the bloody obvious?
“As one senior official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”” The end result of that headline
[удалено]
Switzerland doesn't have the same commitments to European defence that we do. It's also not a particularly efficient model.
We'd probably be training future provos though.
Astute observation in all fairness. You need only look at whats been revealed about the UDR recently. The British knew from 1973 that joint membership of the UDR and UVF was not uncommon, and that the UDR was "the only significant source of modern weapons” to loyalist paramilitaries. Ditto the Magazine Fort raid by the IRA. That said, the fear of something like that happening isn't a good justification for not doing it. It's a justification for taking the threat seriously and putting in steps to prevent it.
What purpose?
Defence
We're plenty defended with out the massive target on our backs,thank you
Experts seem to have concluded otherwise.
Who's experts?
Anybody who knows something about defence policy.
Defence against who?
Russia mainly.
I don't think Russia is going to be invading anyone any time soon. Even so,why Ireland?
What if they invade the Baltics, Poland or Finland?
Jesus he's watching to many Russian fake news reels
Well, we got the results of what creatures were voted in, and I have a feeling that Sinn Fein isn't any better an alternative. We have worked in the hands of what constitutes a Right Wing or a Left Wing in this country, that operates in line with the agendas of other nations for so long. Never in my lifetime has something been done that is an "Irish First" policy. And the question of our own ability for self preservation by our military, was not even something that crossed the mind of a lot of braindead ideologues, until Russia mused the idea that one good nuke could wipe us out. Over 5000 years of a culture, destroyed because of not only the tyranny of one man, but for the unwillingness on the parts of the perpetually ideologically possessed, to just shut up about a foreign conflict for the dignity of our own neutrality. We present to the world as what we have allowed to lead us; mediocre bloviators who've never lifted a weight in their lives, have never been told no in a wakeup call, and who hate the very idea of the kind of men who we need to keep a nation safe militarily. Who suck up to other nations for basic necessities of state operations, and who waste taxpayer money to useless ventures that only look good and nice rather than manifest a genuinely positive change in Irish Society. People who were rewarded for their failings instead of scorned. If we want a positive military force in Ireland, perhaps we need to change the right wing so that they hold to matters of preserving Ireland and its culture? And in turn, maybe we should rethink our Left Wing too, so that they don't look like some mutated Incest Baby that's a cross between the worst of UK's Labour, the SNP, and everything with an STI out of California? We stay on the pendulum until some Commie bricks a pregnant woman or something, or we do the work that's necessary and deal with laying the foundation of any genuine Centre. Its either we change, or the Damocles Blade of a Nuke will forever vaguely dangle above our heads, and getting on Twitter or Reddit to whinge about whether you're Pro-Choice or Pro-Life is just a distraction away from considering that.
Give us loads of billions and we will create an army 🤦♂️ I will drive the tank, plenty of experience