Sir, – In the flurry of correspondence on Ireland’s “perceived” neutrality, it should be pointed out that defence spending across the western world is now a growth industry, and particularly so following the illegal invasion of Ukraine, in Europe.
For example, one of Nato’s membership criteria is that member countries commit to spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence each year. In the case of Ireland, this would mean billions of additional euro would need to be spent upgrading and modernising our defence capabilities.
Would this necessarily be a bad thing given that Northern Ireland, as part of the UK, is inside the military alliance, while south of the border we depend on some quasi-secret memos that the British RAF will come to our aid should we, or our industrial infrastructure, be attacked or threatened? – Is mise,
TOM McELLIGOTT,
New Irish citizens: ‘I hear the racist and xenophobic slurs on the streets. Everything is blamed on immigrants’
Jack Reynor: ‘We were in two minds between eloping or going the whole hog but we got married in Wicklow with about 220 people’
‘I could have gone to California. At this rate, I probably would have raised about half a billion dollars’
Matt Williams: Take a deep breath and see how Sam Prendergast copes with big Fiji test
Listowel,
Co Kerry.
Sir, – I am neither an advocate of membership of Nato nor an advocate of non-membership of Nato. I am confused by the volume of noise advocating either position. We have no defence capacity at present. We depend on our nearest neighbour to “help us out” if a threat appears in our skies or in the vast area of sea that is part of our exclusive economic zone. Ireland is similar in size to Finland. Finland has fighter jets and a serious navy that puts our expenditure to shame in the matter of defence.
Neutrality is a noble position.
It is a toothless position if you have nothing to back it up but the charity of neighbours. – Yours, etc,
ROBERT COEN,
Gort,
Co Galway.
Sir, – Perhaps if the Consultative Forum on International Security had not been such a clear manoeuvre by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to get what he wanted, through setting his own agenda for it – and also through a lopsided public feedback form – President Higgins might not have felt the need to say what he did. A citizens’ forum it is not. – Yours, etc,
ROB FAIRMICHAEL,
Belfast.
Sir, – President Higgins seems to think that what he has to say on neutrality is so weighty and of such importance that it should upend our convention of a ceremonial, impartial and non-executive presidency. I don’t. – Yours, etc,
DAVID CLARKE,
Edinburgh.
Sir, – President Higgins deserves our gratitude for drawing our attention to the stellar career of Prof Louise Richardson. What a wonderful candidate she would make in the next presidential election. How grown-up we would be having voted in an internationally renowned political scientist as president with a “very large letter DBE”. Of course she is far too highly qualified to be bothered with such a sinecure. – Yours, etc,
TIM BROSNAN,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – Your references to Louise Richardson have switched between Ms Louise Richardson, Dame Louise Richardson, and Dr Louise Richardson, although recently you have plumped for Prof Louise Richardson. As a holder of both British and Irish citizenship, she is of course perfectly entitled to be referred to as Dame Louise Richardson, the title she prefers on her Carnegie Corporation website biography. – Yours, etc,
MARY BYRNE,
Dublin 8.
A chara, – Thank God for Michael D Higgins. Long may he continue to be a thorn in the political establishment’s backside. – Is mise,
JOHN GLENNON,
Hollywood,
Co Wicklow.