As to the question of "Who we are", I thought Michael Collins said it nicely:- "'..I stand for an Irish civilisation based on the people and embodying and maintaining the things - their habits, ways of thought, customs - that make them different - the sort of life I was brought up in... Once, years ago, a crowd of us were going along the Shepherd's Bush Road when out of a lane came a chap with a donkey - just the sort of donkey and just the sort of cart that they have at home. He came out quite suddenly and abruptly and we all cheered him. Nobody who has not been an exile will understand me, but I stand for that...'. - Also Sinead, when you asked in your last article whether we would die to defend tax havens or low corporate rate, I think the key word in the question should be 'civilisation' as Collins uses it above - what type of civilisation would the majority of people in the country be ready to die for. That is at the nub of all this.
Given that the Collins quote harked back to a world before the electrification arising from the 1925 Shannon Electricity Act, I wonder what Collins would have made of the results of milk being brought by donkey&cart to a local creamery powered by electricity generated at Ardnacrusha and “brought” by wire to Clonakilty. I wonder how many people lost jobs ( people transporting coal/stokers) and businesses (importers/distributors) as electrification spread!
I would be interested in the facts behind why we couldn't pass the Occupied Territories Bill. Exactly why couldn't we? What are the consequences that are so dire that we must support genocide? Please explain.
There have been some direct threats from US diplomats reported on by The Ditch. I can't cite any right now but the US most definitely has threatened economic repercussions. (I agree with you, no price too high, but just trying to answer all the same)
Yes, I have not heard any government spokesperson explain why exactly. Dependence on US goodwill and US multinationals is alluded to, as is our inability to act without EU permission. While both the US and EU continue to support Israel’s genocidal territorial expansion with occasional expressions of moral indignation.
Maybe there's a problem with the premise and innuendo that nefarious elements are forcing us to "support genocide"? For one there is a strong case that the accusation of genocide doesn't stand up. Google for instance, "10 Questions 'Genocide in Gaza' Accusers Cannot Answer". There's also the context that after the 2014 Gaza war Zuma met with Hamas leader Khalid Meshaal to 'cement formal relations' (October 2015) so South Africa's integrity in the ICJ case may be suspect. There has long been a cynical political campaign unscrupulously exploiting international institutions to re-cast Zionism as racism, apartheid, colonialism, and genocide (the genocide accusation has a decades long history). I think we should be careful to do the right thing notwithstanding the loud and near total consensus the country seems to have arrived at en masse around this issue. Of course people instinctively and rightly want to put a stop to the pain and the horror that undeniably exists. But what if by their actions they inadvertently make the situation worse? You have to be able to take a step back and diagnose the thing correctly as a first step. So I would hope that is part of what underlies the reason this bill hasn't been passed.
Great read. I do wonder if the lack of discussion around Irish neutrality and sovereignty is a deliberate or convenient case of strategic ambiguity. In a somewhat annoying way, this has been Ireland’s diplomatic strength, which has broadly worked for Ireland to the sacrifice of our moral standing. We’re masters in nods and winks. Perhaps this is what the public and political establishment in the end prefer. In contrast the strong positions taken by stronger countries like the UK and France have often not worked out for them.
A possibly bigger problem domestically is how this ambiguity translates to the sovereignty of our institutions at home and their ability of enforcement and projection of power/ability. So many of our institutions sit quite firmly in the “Just wish” half of the Venn diagram. For every OTB, we have dozens of similar outcomes domestically. There is an unseriousness about it all.
This is a really useful distinction between sovereignty as formal authority and sovereignty as actual capacity.
It also feels relevant beyond Ireland. A country, or even a devolved nation, can have strong moral preferences and democratic mandates, but if it lacks control over the infrastructure, institutions, supply chains, finance or security capacity needed to make those choices stick, then sovereignty becomes partly symbolic.
For me, the strongest point here is that dependence often creates hidden vetoes. The visible veto may be legal or procedural, but the more powerful one can be economic, military or infrastructural. That seems to apply just as much to energy, trade, public services and industrial policy as it does to defence.
I would be cautious about treating defence capacity as the whole of sovereignty, but the broader argument is very strong: self-government has to mean more than the right to express a preference. It has to include the capacity to act on it.
Fabulous essay. Sovereignty is such an interesting topic, it doesn’t imho just encompass the ability to enforce our will, it also encompasses ownership of our land and national infrastructure, a country that is owned and run by outside interests is not in fact sovereign. The founders of the Irish State, like Collins understood this very well.
Thanks Sinead I love your essays! I agree with your points. In the world that we live in. What if the old Irish Brehon Law had evolved over the centuries? Law of nature. Living in harmony with each other, tribes, animals, plants, spaces? A law where a brehon could adjudicate between monarchs. Because that was everyone’s survival and harmony and happiness? I wonder what a world built on Brehon Law would look like today.
Everything I have seen over the past 25 year indicates that Russia, backed now by Xi / China, is a real threat to our democratic way of life. Russian money and influence pervade politics, social media, regular media, organised crime and corruption in many European countries. It seeks to weaponise any and all divisions in our Western societies with the objective of reducing our democracies to their level of serfdom.
On their own, Russia would be a modest threat. They are however, backed by Xi and China. This makes them much more dangerous.
Its clearer to see this in countries like France and the UK, because Russia sees them as bigger threats so that is where the hybrid warfare money and effort currently goes. Ireland sees little of this right now, for all the reasons you flagged. Our "nationalists" and wannabe Farages get little resources so far because the ultimate masters are focused elsewhere.
Your critique of the military tools and toys and the military industrial complex implies that you are sceptical of this threat; all we need is enough to make ourselves a bit of a porcupine and we will remain free. So we can avoid getting our hands dirty and aligning ourselves (really what we always were is not truly neutral, as you point out; we were "non-aligned")
Would be interested in your take on what you see as the actual threats to Ireland. Do you think that if we stand apart and just invest a bit more in capabilities, we will be left alone ?
Thank you again for this document, Sinead. I have two longish documents on both of these articles from you, and I wonder how I can send them to you. I think they need to go as attached documents in Word or some format.
I have seen it stated elsewhere that the UN element of the triple lock is not exclusive to the security council, but can also be a function of the UN General Assembly. In which case, the veto power of the permanent members wouldn't apply. Is this correct?
Provocative and insightful essay. Thank you so much for it Sinéad. Examples like Aughinish Alumina, quoted in the essay, shine a bright light on the contradictions of the Irish status quo. Contradictions that go back to 1922 that were swept under the carpet again in 1937. Perhaps the UK's emerging inability to finance it's armed forces, and by definition some of its military arrangements with Ireland, might possibly force Ireland to lift the carpet?
Thinking more about the situation in relation to the Triple Lock and the government pushing the can down the road, it's not surprising. What has any Irish government achieved since the optimism of the early 1990s? A few national motorways and the Luas in Dublin. There have been no infrastructure projects of note, apart from the National Children's Hospital (bicycle shed, printer room) and no more needs to be said about that fiasco. The role of politicians in Ireland is to tell people why something can't happen.
Another impressive article with a decidedly US tone of steely pragmatism bounded by the limits of power, the one that comes from the barrel of a gun. Moral force is totally dependent on the power to enforce it in the new world order. Was this so for the abolition of slavery and for Irish independence of 26 counties? Are the declaration of human rights totally meaningless. Is it futile to aspire to a world without war based on the benefits of peace as opposed to the horrors, human misery, structural and economic ruin, of war? Are we stuck in endless recurring conflict. Has our sense of shared humanity totally disappeared? Is the military and economic might of the super powers, the only form of power and influence. Is the combined, unified power of the global population resistant to the abuses of the super powers totally ineffectual. Having the power to focus opponents attention is undoubtedly a benefit but in a detailed and well reasoned essay like this, is it not possible to question the assumptions that this old world order operates by? Perhaps we have arrived at the dystopia where such questioning is futile and any alternative aspiration is foolish….or is it?
You have missed a fundamental truth. From the start of the Home Rule bills, through the Treaty, through the war years, into the NATO years, Ireland was forced into acceptance of a UK defined role and capacity in defence.
These are matters of historical record but oddly largely public silence. Our defence has operated within a domain determined by others, initially the UK and latterly the US via NATO and recognition of UK priority in defence. They managed our dependency. Our leaders managed our perception of it.
What was a decision made by others has led to a stunted growth: a bonsai tree of defence. We have grown in the direction we have been pruned. Hence at least one strand of the visceral opposition to a military designed for anything other than peacekeeping.
We arrived at a point of choice around 2022. What Mulcahy understood in the Treaty debates as a decision that in 1922 had to be deferred. A “point of intelligence” where we could decide our external defence. Everything we have seen since 2022 indicates that our political and media establishment is not mature enough yet to face a full accounting of why our defence is the way it is.
As to the question of "Who we are", I thought Michael Collins said it nicely:- "'..I stand for an Irish civilisation based on the people and embodying and maintaining the things - their habits, ways of thought, customs - that make them different - the sort of life I was brought up in... Once, years ago, a crowd of us were going along the Shepherd's Bush Road when out of a lane came a chap with a donkey - just the sort of donkey and just the sort of cart that they have at home. He came out quite suddenly and abruptly and we all cheered him. Nobody who has not been an exile will understand me, but I stand for that...'. - Also Sinead, when you asked in your last article whether we would die to defend tax havens or low corporate rate, I think the key word in the question should be 'civilisation' as Collins uses it above - what type of civilisation would the majority of people in the country be ready to die for. That is at the nub of all this.
That is an excellent quote from Collins. He understood very well that political freedom was inextricably linked to economic and cultural sovereignty.
Another relevant 1922 Collins quote re the whole question of sovereignty:
The history of this nation had not been, as was so often said, a
history of a military struggle of 750 years.
It had been much more. It had been a history of a peaceful
penetration of 750 years. It had not been a struggle for 750
years for the ideal of freedom symbolised in the name republic;
it had been a story of slow, steady, economic encroachment by
England. It had been a struggle on their part to prevent that--
a struggle against exploitation, a struggle against the cancer
that was eating out their lives. It was only when they discovered
that it was economic penetration that they discovered that
political freedom was necessary before it could be stopped.
Given that the Collins quote harked back to a world before the electrification arising from the 1925 Shannon Electricity Act, I wonder what Collins would have made of the results of milk being brought by donkey&cart to a local creamery powered by electricity generated at Ardnacrusha and “brought” by wire to Clonakilty. I wonder how many people lost jobs ( people transporting coal/stokers) and businesses (importers/distributors) as electrification spread!
I would be interested in the facts behind why we couldn't pass the Occupied Territories Bill. Exactly why couldn't we? What are the consequences that are so dire that we must support genocide? Please explain.
There have been some direct threats from US diplomats reported on by The Ditch. I can't cite any right now but the US most definitely has threatened economic repercussions. (I agree with you, no price too high, but just trying to answer all the same)
Yes, I have not heard any government spokesperson explain why exactly. Dependence on US goodwill and US multinationals is alluded to, as is our inability to act without EU permission. While both the US and EU continue to support Israel’s genocidal territorial expansion with occasional expressions of moral indignation.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2025/0807/1527435-occupied-territories-bill/
I'm not sure of the precise consequences, even so, but it sounds a bit like - if you put sanctions on Israel then the US will put sanctions on you.
Thanks, Timothy but it seems our dear leaders are reluctant to spell exactly WHY WE ARE COMPLICIT IN GENOCIDE.
Surely no price is too high to oppose mass murder of civilians and then boasting proudly about it.
I find this article extremely limited in ethics, morality and simple basic humanity.
Maybe there's a problem with the premise and innuendo that nefarious elements are forcing us to "support genocide"? For one there is a strong case that the accusation of genocide doesn't stand up. Google for instance, "10 Questions 'Genocide in Gaza' Accusers Cannot Answer". There's also the context that after the 2014 Gaza war Zuma met with Hamas leader Khalid Meshaal to 'cement formal relations' (October 2015) so South Africa's integrity in the ICJ case may be suspect. There has long been a cynical political campaign unscrupulously exploiting international institutions to re-cast Zionism as racism, apartheid, colonialism, and genocide (the genocide accusation has a decades long history). I think we should be careful to do the right thing notwithstanding the loud and near total consensus the country seems to have arrived at en masse around this issue. Of course people instinctively and rightly want to put a stop to the pain and the horror that undeniably exists. But what if by their actions they inadvertently make the situation worse? You have to be able to take a step back and diagnose the thing correctly as a first step. So I would hope that is part of what underlies the reason this bill hasn't been passed.
Posts like this show that we are on the right track
Thanks, Karen. This article is set within parameters that include genocide as acceptable. It makes no sense.
Great read. I do wonder if the lack of discussion around Irish neutrality and sovereignty is a deliberate or convenient case of strategic ambiguity. In a somewhat annoying way, this has been Ireland’s diplomatic strength, which has broadly worked for Ireland to the sacrifice of our moral standing. We’re masters in nods and winks. Perhaps this is what the public and political establishment in the end prefer. In contrast the strong positions taken by stronger countries like the UK and France have often not worked out for them.
A possibly bigger problem domestically is how this ambiguity translates to the sovereignty of our institutions at home and their ability of enforcement and projection of power/ability. So many of our institutions sit quite firmly in the “Just wish” half of the Venn diagram. For every OTB, we have dozens of similar outcomes domestically. There is an unseriousness about it all.
This is a really useful distinction between sovereignty as formal authority and sovereignty as actual capacity.
It also feels relevant beyond Ireland. A country, or even a devolved nation, can have strong moral preferences and democratic mandates, but if it lacks control over the infrastructure, institutions, supply chains, finance or security capacity needed to make those choices stick, then sovereignty becomes partly symbolic.
For me, the strongest point here is that dependence often creates hidden vetoes. The visible veto may be legal or procedural, but the more powerful one can be economic, military or infrastructural. That seems to apply just as much to energy, trade, public services and industrial policy as it does to defence.
I would be cautious about treating defence capacity as the whole of sovereignty, but the broader argument is very strong: self-government has to mean more than the right to express a preference. It has to include the capacity to act on it.
A nation is more than choices… it is imposed upon by geography, by nature and by neighbours. No man is an island.. nor any… any nation.
A nation is more than choices… it is imposed upon by geography, by nature and by neighbours. No man is an island.. nor any… any nation.
A nation is more than choices… it is imposed upon by geography, by nature and by neighbours. No man is an island.. nor any… any nation.
Fabulous essay. Sovereignty is such an interesting topic, it doesn’t imho just encompass the ability to enforce our will, it also encompasses ownership of our land and national infrastructure, a country that is owned and run by outside interests is not in fact sovereign. The founders of the Irish State, like Collins understood this very well.
Thanks Sinead I love your essays! I agree with your points. In the world that we live in. What if the old Irish Brehon Law had evolved over the centuries? Law of nature. Living in harmony with each other, tribes, animals, plants, spaces? A law where a brehon could adjudicate between monarchs. Because that was everyone’s survival and harmony and happiness? I wonder what a world built on Brehon Law would look like today.
Great article Sinead.
Everything I have seen over the past 25 year indicates that Russia, backed now by Xi / China, is a real threat to our democratic way of life. Russian money and influence pervade politics, social media, regular media, organised crime and corruption in many European countries. It seeks to weaponise any and all divisions in our Western societies with the objective of reducing our democracies to their level of serfdom.
On their own, Russia would be a modest threat. They are however, backed by Xi and China. This makes them much more dangerous.
Its clearer to see this in countries like France and the UK, because Russia sees them as bigger threats so that is where the hybrid warfare money and effort currently goes. Ireland sees little of this right now, for all the reasons you flagged. Our "nationalists" and wannabe Farages get little resources so far because the ultimate masters are focused elsewhere.
Your critique of the military tools and toys and the military industrial complex implies that you are sceptical of this threat; all we need is enough to make ourselves a bit of a porcupine and we will remain free. So we can avoid getting our hands dirty and aligning ourselves (really what we always were is not truly neutral, as you point out; we were "non-aligned")
Would be interested in your take on what you see as the actual threats to Ireland. Do you think that if we stand apart and just invest a bit more in capabilities, we will be left alone ?
Thank you again for this document, Sinead. I have two longish documents on both of these articles from you, and I wonder how I can send them to you. I think they need to go as attached documents in Word or some format.
I have seen it stated elsewhere that the UN element of the triple lock is not exclusive to the security council, but can also be a function of the UN General Assembly. In which case, the veto power of the permanent members wouldn't apply. Is this correct?
Provocative and insightful essay. Thank you so much for it Sinéad. Examples like Aughinish Alumina, quoted in the essay, shine a bright light on the contradictions of the Irish status quo. Contradictions that go back to 1922 that were swept under the carpet again in 1937. Perhaps the UK's emerging inability to finance it's armed forces, and by definition some of its military arrangements with Ireland, might possibly force Ireland to lift the carpet?
Thinking more about the situation in relation to the Triple Lock and the government pushing the can down the road, it's not surprising. What has any Irish government achieved since the optimism of the early 1990s? A few national motorways and the Luas in Dublin. There have been no infrastructure projects of note, apart from the National Children's Hospital (bicycle shed, printer room) and no more needs to be said about that fiasco. The role of politicians in Ireland is to tell people why something can't happen.
Another impressive article with a decidedly US tone of steely pragmatism bounded by the limits of power, the one that comes from the barrel of a gun. Moral force is totally dependent on the power to enforce it in the new world order. Was this so for the abolition of slavery and for Irish independence of 26 counties? Are the declaration of human rights totally meaningless. Is it futile to aspire to a world without war based on the benefits of peace as opposed to the horrors, human misery, structural and economic ruin, of war? Are we stuck in endless recurring conflict. Has our sense of shared humanity totally disappeared? Is the military and economic might of the super powers, the only form of power and influence. Is the combined, unified power of the global population resistant to the abuses of the super powers totally ineffectual. Having the power to focus opponents attention is undoubtedly a benefit but in a detailed and well reasoned essay like this, is it not possible to question the assumptions that this old world order operates by? Perhaps we have arrived at the dystopia where such questioning is futile and any alternative aspiration is foolish….or is it?
I find this article to be a clever exercise in cynical war mongering, nicely disguised in clever untruths.
You have missed a fundamental truth. From the start of the Home Rule bills, through the Treaty, through the war years, into the NATO years, Ireland was forced into acceptance of a UK defined role and capacity in defence.
These are matters of historical record but oddly largely public silence. Our defence has operated within a domain determined by others, initially the UK and latterly the US via NATO and recognition of UK priority in defence. They managed our dependency. Our leaders managed our perception of it.
What was a decision made by others has led to a stunted growth: a bonsai tree of defence. We have grown in the direction we have been pruned. Hence at least one strand of the visceral opposition to a military designed for anything other than peacekeeping.
We arrived at a point of choice around 2022. What Mulcahy understood in the Treaty debates as a decision that in 1922 had to be deferred. A “point of intelligence” where we could decide our external defence. Everything we have seen since 2022 indicates that our political and media establishment is not mature enough yet to face a full accounting of why our defence is the way it is.