Our constitution does contain a neutrality principle.

national | crime and justice | opinion/analysis Tuesday October 11, 2005 04:26 by Seán Ryan

Our Constitution is mocked by our Government's use of their vile and ultimately ficticious "Neutrality Policy." I believe I have found a part of our constitution that forbids our Government from forming such a policy. I'd like to hear your comments and any advice or ideas would be welcome.

Year after year, we watch our government redefine the idea of Neutrality with their very flexible "Neutrality Policy." The only part of this elusive entity that I have ever come into contact with, is the idea that this policy defines neutrality as meaning that we can do anything in favour of either warring side just so long as we don't commit troops to a field of contention in favour of either side. (At this point I wonder about Irish troops on Irish soil, pointing guns at Irish citizens in favour of the American War machine's right to cripple and plunder other sovereign nations. I'm talking about Shannon Airport here.) Anyway, to describe this "Neutrality Policy" as anything other than a total load of shite is to be very generous.

Why is it a load of shite you ask?

I'll answer this question for the "generous" people before I start quoting the constitution.

The term "neutral" has a pretty straightforward meaning. I'm not even going to turn to a dictionary to explain it. I'm sure someone will correct me anyway. Basically "neutral" means non-involvement. We therefore cannot have a "neutrality policy" simply because we support and abet the American war machine.

Do you see?

In other words, the contents of this policy belies what it calls itself. ie. it's called a "neutrality" policy but the policy itself is not neutral. Its simple isn't it?

Methinks Bertie ought to rectify this problem. Allow me to offer a few suggestions for name changes that might more truthfully describe this "policy."

How about naming it our, "Nearly neutral but not quite policy."

Or, our, "we'll do what suits us best irregardless as to consequences so shut the fuck up policy."

Ok let's move on a bit and look at the paradox this "neutrality policy" currently finds itself floundering aimlessly in.

Before the outbreak of WW2, Eamonn DeValera demanded and secured the return of the treaty ports,which were military bases still held by Britain. This was done so that our "neutrality policy" could be implemented. In other words we could not implement any "neutrality policy" whilst we facilitated a warring foreign army.

There's the paradox. The "neutrality policy" cannot be implemented whilst we facilitate a warring army that we are not in command of, yet, it can function whilst we facilitate a warring army that we do not control.

Now for the bit most of you have been waiting for. My constitutional reference. For the experts out there I'd like to know about the actual legal ramifications of what I'm about to say in as far as disagreeing with what I have to say is concerned. I'd also like to know does my argument have any legal merit.

Here's the reference, it is the preamble to our Constitution and it is the only part endorsed by "We the people."

PREAMBLE
In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Ireland, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation, And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations, Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.


The way I see it.....The Government derives its power from the Constitution. The Constitution derives its power and purpose from us. We are represented in our constitution by the preamble, which describes us and the aims of our Constitution. The preamble to the Constitution is its Spirit.

Our "neutrality policy" is obviously repugnant to the Spirit of our constitution. Simply because we support a nation who sees no problem with bombing being used as a pacific method in the settlement of disputes.

Our government often spouts this "Pacific settlement of disputes" shite and yet they support America who sees bombing people as a method of negotiation.

See where it says "concord established with other nations," near the end of the Preamble.

Concord in simple terms means peace and agreement. "Other nations," because it doesn't single any particular nation out, means, "all nations." To be anything other than Neutral violates this principle.

For example, if we fuel up and help transport the American war machine towards its target, then we can be described as, "helping the yanks again." However, when we do this we are not establishing "Concord" with other sovereign nations like Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact we could be seen to be sanctioning both illegal wars and subsequent atrocities visited on these innocent peoples, this seems to me to be an act that is fully in opposition to the idea of "Concord" being established.

That's about it really. I'd like to know whether the preamble has any legal merit or is it just a bout of wishful thinking, signed by we the fools, that's open to contradiction at every given oppertunity.

In my opinion, if the preamble has no legal merit the Constitution itself has no legal merit. Either way our government acts repugnantly.

Anyways, fair play to the folks in Denmark for suing their Prime Minister for violating their constitution. Let's hope it starts a trend.

American war machine out, Neutrality and Sovereignty in.

Thanks for listening.

Seán Ryan