A chara, – Recent correspondents to these pages have criticised Gay Mitchell’s predictions (Letters, April 26th) about the security implications of Irish unity and, specifically, Nato membership. One is put in mind of the ardent Brexiteers who, prior to the 2016 referendum, pooh-poohed any concerns over the Irish border in any future UK-EU relationship. They later found that the EU and US cared about Ireland, even if they didn’t.
By analogy, those Irish people who bury their heads in the sand today about security and defence may be surprised to learn that the rest of the world actually takes notice of such matters.
Achieving Irish unity – a cause which I support – would entail an Ireland almost literally stepping out from under the UK’s defence umbrella. It would be absurd for us to think that we could continue to rely on the current one-sided UK defence arrangements after Irish unity.
The choice would be between Nato membership (leading to a greater investment in Ireland’s defence capabilities) or a more independent form of neutrality (requiring much greater investment in said capabilities). In other words, breaking our territorial ties with the UK would necessitate making some grown-up decisions about defence.
‘Is that your wife? You should be ashamed’: a charity collector’s anti-immigrant hate in south Dublin
Local history: From William Orr and the not-so-united Irishmen to a box of underwear labelled ‘ass sizes’
Here are 33 places to eat in Ireland that readers say are good value
David Coote has made a fool of himself – but worse, he’s undermined referees
It’s good to anticipate these challenging decisions, and to talk about them. – Is mise,
DONNCHA LENIHAN,
East Wall,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – Further to recent correspondence as to whether a united Ireland should or should not be a member of Nato, a possible solution would be associate membership. This membership would permit intelligence sharing and training, access to our ports and airports and allow attendance at Nato meetings, albeit in a non-voting capacity.
It would not oblige the new State to make an Article 5 commitment nor would this membership require an undertaking to commit to reaching a military expenditure of 2 per cent of GDP, which is a requirement of full membership.
It could be argued, perhaps at a stretch, that this membership would be compatible with neutrality as no commitment is being made to engage in military conflict. – Yours, etc,
PAUL WALSH,
Skerries,
Co Dublin.