Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

White Paper - When is it due to be published?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    Water charges being increased by 100% would be a good way to pay for the EPVs
    ...which would be political hara kiri as mentioned by Banner above, I would think
    "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Truck Driver View Post
      ...which would be political hara kiri as mentioned by Banner above, I would think
      Giving that it would be against the will of the people and would arguably require a Constitutional amendment yes

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by DeV View Post
        Have you read the previous WP or the GP?

        They both say exactly as I stated above



        What they will do is say the threat is there but it is low (which a direct threat is).
        They will then say this capability will be retained at this level.
        I have indeed read both documents and as we're aware the WP 2000 is hopelessly out of date approaching 2015. For example Here's some of the Key capability decisions of WP 2000;

        ■ The retention of a Permanent Defence Force of 10,500 personnel organised along conventional military lines.
        ■ A light infantry based Army with a three Brigade structure and an appropriate level of all arms capability.
        ■ Development of the Naval Service around a modern 8 ship flotilla.
        ■ Development of the Air Corps based on its existing role profile.
        ■ Development of a re-organised Reserve Defence Force.

        I agree that the new WP will identify or should identify threats to Ireland and seek to develop policy based on these threats. There is some good material in the GP but it's a one and only chance to be bold and try to develop new policy initiatives but it falls short IMO. Talk is cheap and my main contention still remains that you can essentially say what you want in a strategic document but unless you have the capabilities available or are prepared to invest in those capabilities then its a worthless exercise.

        The GP talks about training to NATO capability but kicks to touch on the Neutrality issue - probably understandably so but isn't it time to be bold and try and change the status quo? In terms of expenditure It conveniently hides behind the "expenditure was reduced during the crisis and we had to reduce defence spending in accordance with that" policy. There's no doubt that was the harsh reality but as the economy improves there's no clamour for an increase in Defence spending from the DoD. In fact I'd say they relished the opportunity to twist the knife during the downturn.

        Reports of a further delay are not that surprising. I seriously doubt if it's got anything to do with the political situation but more likely simply "we're working on it!" but what's another 6 months in a four year plus delay.

        Then again Christmas week may prove me wrong!
        Last edited by Pure Hover; 10 December 2014, 19:24.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Banner View Post
          I actually think the delay is a good thing. To me it suggests that the powers that be are looking to make some adjustments within the overall budgetary envelope to literally get more bang for our buck. This would be very politically sensitive so announcements of a strategic nature are being postponed to a time when it will (hopefully from a govt's perspective) carry less political risk.

          Can you imagine the fall out of announcing a strategic aim for an EPV or two, more helicopters and a vehicle fleet upgrade programme at a time when water charges are still very sensitive and the country is still reeling from years of austerity. It would be political suicide so in light of that the White Paper gets pushed over the horizon in the hope that it can be announced in a time when the environment is less sensitive.

          What do ye reckon? is this total pie in the sky or does my theory hold some water?
          I think you may have something there Banner and I'd like to believe there's some truth to it but...........

          Increases in Defence spending are always controversial but surely a return to pre-crisis spending should be a minimum aspiration. I suppose it depends on how you sell it really. There wasn't a bleat from the public about the new NS patrol vessels but when it came to replacing the Gov't jet then that was a completely different matter.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Pure Hover View Post
            I have indeed read both documents and as we're aware the WP 2000 is hopelessly out of date approaching 2015. For example Here's some of the Key capability decisions of WP 2000;

            ■ The retention of a Permanent Defence Force of 10,500 personnel organised along conventional military lines.
            ■ A light infantry based Army with a three Brigade structure and an appropriate level of all arms capability.
            ■ Development of the Naval Service around a modern 8 ship flotilla.
            ■ Development of the Air Corps based on its existing role profile.
            ■ Development of a re-organised Reserve Defence Force.

            I agree that the new WP will identify or should identify threats to Ireland and seek to develop policy based on these threats. There is some good material in the GP but it's a one and only chance to be bold and try to develop new policy initiatives but it falls short IMO. Talk is cheap and my main contention still remains that you can essentially say what you want in a strategic document but unless you have the capabilities available or are prepared to invest in those capabilities then its a worthless exercise.

            The GP talks about training to NATO capability but kicks to touch on the Neutrality issue - probably understandably so but isn't it time to be bold and try and change the status quo? In terms of expenditure It conveniently hides behind the "expenditure was reduced during the crisis and we had to reduce defence spending in accordance with that" policy. There's no doubt that was the harsh reality but as the economy improves there's no clamour for an increase in Defence spending from the DoD. In fact I'd say they relished the opportunity to twist the knife during the downturn.

            Reports of a further delay are not that surprising. I seriously doubt if it's got anything to do with the political situation but more likely simply "we're working on it!" but what's another 6 months in a four year plus delay.

            Then again Christmas week may prove me wrong!
            Of the four areas you talk about the only thing has changed is the strength. It ran until 2010.

            You come up with Aims & strategies are match resources to them, not the other way around.

            The training to NATO standards has been going on for over 14 years ago now. Pfp ex/courses, courses in NATO countries, NATO standard equipment etc etc

            Defence (and most other departments) budgets were cut for 2 main reasons:
            - Government income dropping dramatically
            - Social Welfare spending increasing dramatically

            Maybe FIS, the rent supplement, the various unemployment benefits etc should have been cut and defence spending should have been maintained? Would Irish people be willing to pay?

            Two of the key questions the GP posed relate to neutality/engagement with collective security and the triple lock.

            Personally I'd say a major change is unlikely because that isn't what irish people want.

            FG manifesto page 31 (change the triple lock and mutual defence mentioned):



            Labour manifesto page 89 (more or less maintain the status quo):

            Comment


            • #96
              ha

              ha ha

              HA HA HA

              Labour wants to deploy the RDF overseas and integrate us more closely with civil defence

              FG wants to ensure that the RDF gets postal votes

              FML.
              "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
              "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by morpheus View Post
                ha

                ha ha

                HA HA HA

                Labour wants to deploy the RDF overseas and integrate us more closely with civil defence

                FG wants to ensure that the RDF gets postal votes

                FML.
                Well, whatever about the likelihood of the former, the postal vote suggestion has more merit. Bearing in mind that personnel might be away from their home base on a course, Annual Training, etc. Although I can't ever remember a situation where a vote clashed with RDF military training. What happens with PDF personnel in similar situations (I get that they need the postal vote when serving overseas)?
                "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

                Comment


                • #98
                  PDF personnel are prohibited from voting in the normal manner.All our votes are postal.
                  "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by apod View Post
                    PDF personnel are prohibited from voting in the normal manner.All our votes are postal.
                    Ohhh. Didn't know that. Why is that, out of curiosity?
                    "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

                    Comment


                    • So the CO can be sure you are not voting for who you aren't supposed to be voting for. The GS have the same, but it isn't mandatory.

                      All joking aside, the reason is to allow the soldier to vote wherever he or she happens to be posted, at home or overseas. Making it mandatory reduces the chance of someone having 2 votes. (One in your hometown, one where you are posted)
                      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                      Comment


                      • It's probably for a number of reasons:
                        - soldiers (in uniform) not going to the polls (in uniform) on the way to/from work
                        - soldiers being away from home
                        Etc

                        Comment


                        • It was the norm that any serviceman could choose in what constituency he could use his postal vote. This privilege / right was withdrawn suddenly in the 90's as far as I remember, maybe the 80's! There was a fear that large numbers of servicemen might opt for and target one particular constituency for obvious reasons.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Mutual international defence training & agreements
                            A closer defence partnership/association/ training agreement (for all three branches of the Defence Forces) with one or two countries – that have good capabilities in the three areas of land, sea and air operations - would probably be advantageous for the Defence Forces, to keep up with modern procedures, but on a very close-up basis. This country though would then have to offer some reciprocal training opportunities to these one-two countries, that would be of reasonable value to them.

                            [on NATO - personally not sure it should, and agree with others, that full membership of multi-national NATO is unlikely is a candidate scenario].

                            To make such a partnership (relatively informal – not a ‘pact’) agreement acceptable to this country (politically etc.), to the other actor(s), be worthwhile to both, and give this country meaningful lessons (i.e. in alternative but still ‘right’ techniques and procedures for doing things), and just as importantly, to avoid getting this country entangled (or associated/confused with) some other nation’s foreign adventures – the following one-two selection principles should be to be used(?):

                            1. The other nation(s) to be relatively close in geographical and population terms to Ireland, and relatively close in political and social outlooks (but not too close – so as to keep
                            clearer divisions of interests and influences).

                            2. The other nation(s) should not have too many, or too deep ‘interests’ around the world - or aspirations for such... (nor be a near ‘client’ state, or ‘proxy’ for another such
                            nation).

                            For either one, or both, principles the following example nations could be ruled out: - Britain, USA, Germany, Brazil, Poland, Denmark, Russia, China..!

                            It would leave open, under one or both principle parameters: Sweden, or say Sweden/Norway/Finland (i.e. in a similar fashion to how they partner each other in some foreign affairs affairs abroad...(admittedly, not too dissimilar in that regard to Irish and British cross assistance e.g. consulate/citizen wise in foreign countries))...also reasonable candidates(?), Portugal, Austria, Belgium, and maybe France (though France a bit shaky on selection principle no.2...).

                            Obviously, some of those nation suggestions are not new, but that would be part of the attraction (for public acceptability).

                            [I previously mentioned making some suggestions, some a bit ‘left of field’, for capabilities increases and readjustments for the Defence Forces. However, seeing as a couple or so would be quite unlikely (ever, possibly even technically) and, regardless, the sum of them would be in ‘Hover Tank’ and ‘Mitty territory, and may ‘sully’ the above and previous ruminations..!.. I’ll stick them where they belong – in the ‘Hover Tank’ thread.]

                            Comment


                            • Re: internal security and NI
                              I do not think for example, that the ending of the DF involvement in security for ‘cash in transit’ was a good idea(not that it came from the Government side) (and notwithstanding the prominent opportunity it always presented regards the public, to point to that particular service and say ‘this is one thing the Army does...’)...because it was such a great deterrent, in that criminals would not even bother to attempt to ‘arm up’ to assault said accompanied cash transfers.
                              Criminals may attempt to though, if it were the Gardai in escorts...
                              and i don’t think the Gardai as the ‘civil defence/guardians’ (as in their name) should up arm to a very high level i.e. with assault rifles.
                              Never mind the idea of private security companies ever been so armed for the same reasons.

                              The Army is armed in such a way, so that the Gardai don’t have to be (in my opinion).

                              Similar thoughts towards (whatever) DF units been retained widely dispersed around the country.

                              The military getting involved in day-to-day internal security???.. If it looked as if a ‘shitt..uation’ was leading the country down that direction (e.g. in an ‘expanded’ state...) – likely best to run in the opposite direction (?)..like it is the plague!.. and in the same strand... l also agree, that the wishes of the Unionist community seem to be conveniently left out (and more importantly?!?) their subsequent ‘unforeseen’ impact as a voting block in ‘Greater-Ireland’ [is that a phrase?!), could help take the whole country closer back to where it originally came. That would be ironic.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by WhingeNot View Post
                                Re: Mutual international defence training & agreements
                                A closer defence partnership/association/ training agreement (for all three branches of the Defence Forces) with one or two countries – that have good capabilities in the three areas of land, sea and air operations - would probably be advantageous for the Defence Forces, to keep up with modern procedures, but on a very close-up basis. This country though would then have to offer some reciprocal training opportunities to these one-two countries, that would be of reasonable value to them.

                                [on NATO - personally not sure it should, and agree with others, that full membership of multi-national NATO is unlikely is a candidate scenario].

                                To make such a partnership (relatively informal – not a ‘pact’) agreement acceptable to this country (politically etc.), to the other actor(s), be worthwhile to both, and give this country meaningful lessons (i.e. in alternative but still ‘right’ techniques and procedures for doing things), and just as importantly, to avoid getting this country entangled (or associated/confused with) some other nation’s foreign adventures – the following one-two selection principles should be to be used(?):

                                1. The other nation(s) to be relatively close in geographical and population terms to Ireland, and relatively close in political and social outlooks (but not too close – so as to keep
                                clearer divisions of interests and influences).

                                2. The other nation(s) should not have too many, or too deep ‘interests’ around the world - or aspirations for such... (nor be a near ‘client’ state, or ‘proxy’ for another such
                                nation).

                                For either one, or both, principles the following example nations could be ruled out: - Britain, USA, Germany, Brazil, Poland, Denmark, Russia, China..!

                                It would leave open, under one or both principle parameters: Sweden, or say Sweden/Norway/Finland (i.e. in a similar fashion to how they partner each other in some foreign affairs affairs abroad...(admittedly, not too dissimilar in that regard to Irish and British cross assistance e.g. consulate/citizen wise in foreign countries))...also reasonable candidates(?), Portugal, Austria, Belgium, and maybe France (though France a bit shaky on selection principle no.2...).

                                Obviously, some of those nation suggestions are not new, but that would be part of the attraction (for public acceptability).

                                [I previously mentioned making some suggestions, some a bit ‘left of field’, for capabilities increases and readjustments for the Defence Forces. However, seeing as a couple or so would be quite unlikely (ever, possibly even technically) and, regardless, the sum of them would be in ‘Hover Tank’ and ‘Mitty territory, and may ‘sully’ the above and previous ruminations..!.. I’ll stick them where they belong – in the ‘Hover Tank’ thread.]
                                No need
                                Engaging with a single country will not broaden the experience as much as it does in a multi-national environment

                                Just participate more in PfP, EDA and EU battlegroups

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X