Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eurostat: Highest share of expenditure on defence in Estonia, lowest in Ireland(2016)

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

  • #16
    aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand radio silence from the dept and the taoiseach

    The question needs to be phrased in such a way as it is completely impossible for him to avoid it.

    Taoiseach , why is Irelands defence spending the lowest in europe?

    Reply - Look, new planes and boats!
    "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


    • #17
      Originally posted by morpheus View Post
      aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand radio silence from the dept and the taoiseach

      The question needs to be phrased in such a way as it is completely impossible for him to avoid it.

      Taoiseach , why is Irelands defence spending the lowest in europe?

      Reply - Look, new planes and boats!
      You think the Irish public care enough to make it an issue? Sadly if he announced any increase then we'd have "whataboutism" breaking out.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
        You think the Irish public care enough to make it an issue? Sadly if he announced any increase then we'd have "whataboutism" breaking out.
        That depends, I actually give the public more intelligence than maybe I should. At the moment Defence is seen as a joke, and a lot of that has to do with the lies people have been fed about being neutral but a lot has to do with cop-on. People know that with what we spend we can never defend ourselves, that the amount of money cannot support the resources needed to do the job. That is why many ask why do we need an Army? They could not defend us anyway, is the usual comment.

        What we need is a serious debate (more chance of us have a 2% of GDP defence budget!!), a serious debate about defence and what do we want and what we need to provide. Until this happens the most likely development will be less and less budget while the demand rises.

        Comment


        • #19
          Don't forget the standard "sure nobody is ever going to attack us" apathetic line that is repeated as mantra by public and politicos alike. Until the attitude is likely to change there is no likelihood of any serious debate about DF funding or cability expansions.

          The AC Air Ambulance thread recent posts give the perfect example of the apathy at all levels to the DF.
          Gov willing to spend 7million Euros on private contractor out of hours air ambulance but would not consider devoting that funding to increasing AC air amb capabilities (forgeting agruement about whether AC should be doing it or not).
          An army is power. Its entire purpose is to coerce others. This power can not be used carelessly or recklessly. This power can do great harm. We have seen more suffering than any man should ever see, and if there is going to be an end to it, it must be an end that justifies the cost. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

          Comment


          • #20
            What we need is a serious debate (more chance of us have a 2% of GDP defence budget!!), a serious debate about defence and what do we want and what we need to provide. Until this happens the most likely development will be less and less budget while the demand rises.
            The whataboutery on view for the PESCO debates was stunning ( and stunningly misinformed ). I was watching very closely the PESCO stuff to see if there was any GDP commitments on spending as that was the most likely place for it to pop up.

            Pensions or no the Eurostat indicator above is fairly solid ; there's little chance of change in the current political climate. ( And, since FF put one of their best people off Defence onto Brexit (Lisa) , I'd expect little change on that side of the house except a little better pay. )
            "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

            "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

            Comment


            • #21
              Useful statistic, and I agree with the posts above and am not optimistic about any real change in Irish defense spending. Trellheim & X Ray are spot on. Same old "sure we're neutral and everyone loves the Irish peacekeepers" arguments will be dusted off and wheeled out followed by the "whatabouery" crowd. Ireland, as I said before, has no real defense posture.

              The Defense White Paper (i.e. the defense strategy) describe a limited threat from a conventional force which is fairly accurate as such. Ireland is not Poland, we don't have the bear on the door step. So, as Irish logic goes, there is no threat, why spend the money? We don't need to project power to defend national interests and have historically clung to a dated concept of neutrality as an excuse to not defend the nation. We've avoided alliances like NATO and are a small partner in the EU. Geographically we're a bit isolated from a strategic threat perspective. When Luxemburg and Malta outspend you in relative terms, you know it's not a serious matter politically.


              Given the fairly parochial outlook of the Irish political system, even if our airspace and waters were routinely and visibly violated, I don't know it would change. Sure, we'd moan on at the UN & EU and send sternly worded memo's, then we'd be patted on the head like a petulant child at a wedding and told "here's a biccie, now fcuk off and leave the grown ups alone". If we don't take our own defense seriously, why would anyone else?

              Before spending, Ireland needs to decide on a strategy, then resource it. I would suggest spending on greater integration with EU & NATO airspace & radar systems, cyber, intel and naval systems to have awareness of who is in our waters (surface & below). At least we'd know what is out there and could use the systems for narcotic & fisheries interdiction. Actually being able to defend the country is probably a political non-starter. Could you imagine trying to explain integrated & networked air defense systems to the Healy-Rae's?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by irishrgr View Post
                Useful statistic, and I agree with the posts above and am not optimistic about any real change in Irish defense spending. Trellheim & X Ray are spot on. Same old "sure we're neutral and everyone loves the Irish peacekeepers" arguments will be dusted off and wheeled out followed by the "whatabouery" crowd. Ireland, as I said before, has no real defense posture.

                The Defense White Paper (i.e. the defense strategy) describe a limited threat from a conventional force which is fairly accurate as such. Ireland is not Poland, we don't have the bear on the door step. So, as Irish logic goes, there is no threat, why spend the money? We don't need to project power to defend national interests and have historically clung to a dated concept of neutrality as an excuse to not defend the nation. We've avoided alliances like NATO and are a small partner in the EU. Geographically we're a bit isolated from a strategic threat perspective. When Luxemburg and Malta outspend you in relative terms, you know it's not a serious matter politically.


                Given the fairly parochial outlook of the Irish political system, even if our airspace and waters were routinely and visibly violated, I don't know it would change. Sure, we'd moan on at the UN & EU and send sternly worded memo's, then we'd be patted on the head like a petulant child at a wedding and told "here's a biccie, now fcuk off and leave the grown ups alone". If we don't take our own defense seriously, why would anyone else?

                Before spending, Ireland needs to decide on a strategy, then resource it. I would suggest spending on greater integration with EU & NATO airspace & radar systems, cyber, intel and naval systems to have awareness of who is in our waters (surface & below). At least we'd know what is out there and could use the systems for narcotic & fisheries interdiction. Actually being able to defend the country is probably a political non-starter. Could you imagine trying to explain integrated & networked air defense systems to the Healy-Rae's?
                The Healy-Raes??? The same clowns who suggested calling in the Army to cut back weeds on Kerry ditches??
                "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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Truck Driver View Post
                  The Healy-Raes??? The same clowns who suggested calling in the Army to cut back weeds on Kerry ditches??
                  I’m surprised they haven’t asked for the army to ferry drink-drivers home from the pubs in Kerry...
                  'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
                  'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
                  Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
                  He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
                  http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Any day now.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by irishrgr View Post
                      Before spending, Ireland needs to decide on a strategy, then resource it. I would suggest spending on greater integration with EU & NATO airspace & radar systems, cyber, intel and naval systems to have awareness of who is in our waters (surface & below). At least we'd know what is out there and could use the systems for narcotic & fisheries interdiction. Actually being able to defend the country is probably a political non-starter. Could you imagine trying to explain integrated & networked air defense systems to the Healy-Rae's?
                      I would add what role we want to play in the UN to the list, a provider of bodies or a provider of capability?

                      As for the Healy-Rae brothers, they are the easiest of the indy crowd, just give them the contract to put a LR radar site on the top of Carrauntoohil!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                        Ireland’s defence spending is lowest in Europe at 0.3% of GDP

                        By Sean O’Riordan
                        The Department of Defence added that each country pursues a defence policy that reflects its particular requirements and there can be significant differences in the proportion of funding that differing states allocate to defence.

                        “While there is always the potential to invest additional resources in defence, this must be considered against other social, economic and environmental priorities”

                        The department said that there are a range of other international comparator measures which would place Ireland higher compared to other countries, including total defence expenditure, the percentage of overall government expenditure, and expenditure on a per capita basis.


                        To use a phase made popular earlier this year "I call BS!!" (What is also often left out is that 25% of our defence budget is to cover Pensions)
                        Clear, if we compare spend per capita or overall expenditure to a small Third World country we come out on top. But we have to be compared to our peers and that is other small/medium First World nations.

                        Taking % GDP is a means to be able to fairly compare, if the economy is doing bad the GDP and spend goes down, if it is doing good GDP climes and so doe expenditure in absolute term. All the time the % stays the same, back in the late 80's we had still is a slight recession but our spend was 1.3%, a whole 1% more than today!

                        So lets look at some other indicators:
                        Firstly defence as % of total government budget
                        Top: Estonia 6.0%
                        Bottom: Luxembourg 1.0%
                        Ireland: 1.1%
                        Denmark: 2.3%
                        Finland: 2.3%
                        Sweden: 2.6%
                        EU Avg: 2.6%

                        Next the Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC) GMI Index.
                        The Global Militarization Index (GMI) depicts the relative weight and importance of the military apparatus of one state in relation to its society as a whole.
                        Here we are on place 117 in the world, Israel being number 1.
                        Ireland: 493pts
                        Denmark: 642pts
                        Finland: 718pts
                        Sweden: 523pts

                        One of the key sub-indicators in the GMI is the Military Expenditure Index Score: comparison of military expenditure with its gross domestic product (GDP) and its health expenditure (as share of its GDP);
                        Ireland: 4.32
                        Denmark: 4.42
                        Finland: 4.96
                        Sweden: 4.86

                        We could go on with more comparisons but as we all know you can tell whatever story you want by selecting what to show and what not. But the general view is that no matter what index you use we are the bottom for defence. And what is more annoying is the DoD defending it with BS rather than being honest and saying the "outside some photo ops for politicos we do not give a flying f..k about funding defence"
                        In light of this level of Defence funding (lets be honest here 0.3% is not exactly a gold medal performance) and in light of the fact that the US (Trump) are out to turn the screws on the Europe viz trade and sharing the Defence burden, could the EU in turn start playing hardball with some countries such as Ireland when it comes to expectations of the required collective security within Europe?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Anzac View Post
                          In light of this level of Defence funding (lets be honest here 0.3% is not exactly a gold medal performance) and in light of the fact that the US (Trump) are out to turn the screws on the Europe viz trade and sharing the Defence burden, could the EU in turn start playing hardball with some countries such as Ireland when it comes to expectations of the required collective security within Europe?
                          Think we still have an opt out that says they can't make us increase spending, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was something.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                            Think we still have an opt out that says they can't make us increase spending, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was something.
                            I doubt there's a specific mechanism, but if you don't share the burden you can't expect other states to go into bat for you on the the things that matter to Ireland that don't matter that much to, say, Germany, France or Poland.

                            If BREXIT was beginning in a couple of years into a Trump presidency it would have been interesting to see how much emphasis the EU side placed on the issues surrounding the Irish border...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I for one wish that they WOULD make us pay for it. at least id be happier about how my tax euros were being spent
                              "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


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by morpheus View Post
                                I for one wish that they WOULD make us pay for it. at least id be happier about how my tax euros were being spent
                                You mean to say you have a problem with your tax money going to support Jacinta, her 5 kids(one of whom has a "learning disability") by 4 fathers, her 4 bed social house and her annual holiday in Malaga?
                                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X