Sir, – Senator Tom Clonan questions “received views” about the potential of a Russian military attack on an EU member state in the coming years (Letters, June 17th).
He warns against “a growing clamour for an offensive posture within Europe – from a collective of voices who for the most part have zero experience of armed conflict themselves”.
Senator Clonan should listen more closely to the assessments of General Seán Clancy who is the former chief of staff of the Defence Forces and the present chairman of the EU Military Committee.
At a speech in Brussels last month General Clancy warned that the EU faced “acute and growing threats” from Russia and likely had “limited space and time to react … to be prepared to deter any similar attacks on the Union, our populations and our democratic way of life.”
Mark Moriarty: Get your bold flavours fast with these two simple Asian dishes
Kneecap case: ‘A woman pointed to a sniggering Móglaí Bap as the magistrate asked if anyone knew an Irish interpreter’
Story of a Song review: How Spandau Ballet’s Through the Barricades emerged from the Troubles
Brews with a view: The best bars around Ireland for a sunny day pint
General Clancy’s words echo those of Germany’s chief of defence. General Carsten Breuer recently observed that Russia was accelerating the arming of its forces to an “enormous extent”, producing close to 1,500 main battle tanks every year, and warned that “there’s an intent and there’s a build up of the stocks” for a possible future attack on the EU’s Baltic member states.
Senator Clonan assumes that the EU – with its considerable economic might – would come to the aid of a member state if it is attacked.
It is unlikely that the Hungarian government or that of Slovakia, both of whom enjoy close ties to Moscow, would do much to help in the event of a Russian invasion.
The European political landscape is shifting – scepticism towards European defence and Nato is on the rise in some countries; the outcome of elections and the political fortunes of the far-right in countries such as France, Germany and Italy are anything but predictable.
It is perfectly rational that countries such as Poland and the Baltics, with EU assistance, wish to rapidly increase their defence capabilities now, lest future European divisions create an opportunity for Russia to invade or fundamentally subvert their democracies.
Deterrence is the best way to avoid war in the face of an aggressive regime with no respect for international law.
Given Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, attacks on European critical infrastructure, assassination plots in EU member states and attempts to spread disinformation to influence elections, there is nothing “offensive” about that. – Yours, etc,
DR EDWARD BURKE,
Assistant professor in the history of war since 1945,
UCD,
Dublin 4.
A dangerous escalation
Sir, – Israel’s attack on Iran marks yet another dangerous escalation by a nuclear-armed regime already responsible for ongoing genocide in Gaza, ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, and attacks on Lebanon and Syria.
One may view Iran’s internal politics and social structure with deep distaste-abhorrence, even, but still recognise its right to defend itself from what is clearly the greatest threat to regional security: Israel’s repeated violations of international law, carried out with full backing from Western powers.
The bankruptcy of the West’s position is staggering.
The EU, which likes to see itself as a principled defender of human rights, has long since forfeited credibility. Who in China or the Global South could be expected to take seriously any Western lectures on international norms or human rights? – Yours, etc,
SÉAMUS WHITE,
Stoneybatter,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – Martin McDonald complains that “the Knesset was not consulted or informed in advance of the attack on Iran”, which he says is evidence that Israel is a “rogue state” (Letters, June 16th).
Surely Mr McDonald is aware that in virtually every democracy in the world, the deployment of military force, short of a formal declaration of war, is a decision reserved to the executive/government without parliamentary approval?
The reason for this is simply that military action against an adversary would hardly be of much impact if the plans had been publicised in advance in parliamentary debates.
The United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and virtually all member states of the European Union follow this principle. Are all of these countries “rogue states”?
Even here in Ireland, our constitution does not require parliamentary approval before the government deploys our armed forces. It’s only through the “triple lock” legislation put in place by the Oireachtas that our Government’s hands are bound, by giving Russia and China an equal say in the deployment of Irish troops.
Who did the leaders of Hamas and Iran inform or consult before they launched their initial unprovoked attacks on Israel?
Terrorist organisations and dictatorships don’t need to bother with trifling notions like democratic accountability, and yet Israel’s critics consistently seek to hold it to a higher standard than its enemies and every other democratic country in the world. – Yours, etc.,
BARRY WALSH,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – We have become desensitised to the daily accounts of slaughter from Gaza.
Despite this we need to constantly remind ourselves that what we are witnessing, in real time, is ethnic cleansing . The current US ambassador to Israel speaks openly of the removal of an entire population from Gaza.
The two state solution is no longer official US policy. Attendees at the cancelled planned summit to revive the two state approach have been informed that it does not align with US interests.
In recent debates on the Occupied Territories Bill and the Central Bank facilitating the sale of Israeli bonds, Government representatives have repeatedly emphasised the importance of the EU acting with a unified response to the tragedy unfolding in Gaza.
We are told that protesting in a unified manner is the most effective approach.
In stark contrast, EU Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, shows no such concern for a united response.
This is the second occasion on which she has taken it upon herself, to speak on behalf of the EU, on this occasion regarding Israel’s attack on Iran.
For whom does von der Leyen speak when she makes pronouncements of this sort?
Is she speaking for the Irish Government or the Irish people, when she excuses the latest phase of Netanyahu’s “forever war”?
What level of depravity must be reached, before our Government sets aside talk of “pragmatic realism” and “EU competencies”, says on behalf of the Irish people that what we are witnessing is simply morally wrong, and acts accordingly? – Yours, etc,
DES SMITH,
Dundrum,
Dublin.
Reluctant US presidents
Sir, – William Taft was a reluctant US president. His life’s ambition was to be chief justice.
But his wife’s ambition for him was the presidency.
So it was that he served a single term from 1909 and had to wait until 1921 for the appointment he craved.
Taft gave short shrift to the suggestion that he make another run for the White House in 1916.
He said that former presidents have no place there and that it were better that they be given “a dose of chloroform or the fruit of the lotus tree” to “secure the country from the troublesome fear that the occupant could ever come back”.
Maybe he was on to something. – Yours, etc,
PAT O’BRIEN,
Rathmines,
Dublin 6.
Travel bans and Australia
Sir, – Many countries have now banned their citizens from travelling to Israel or at least advised them not to visit unless they have to since they probably wouldn’t be able to help you if there were problems.
Like many, I have been lucky enough to visit Israel in quieter times and would recommend going there, but not for a while, perhaps quite a while.
It’s sad that there are so many countries that are not really safe to visit, mainly because of armed conflicts and sometimes natural disasters.
In the meantime, why not visit Australia?
We’re friendly and have plenty to see. You can ignore all the stories of snakes, spiders, deadly jellyfish and now mushrooms, not that many people get killed that way. – Yours, etc,
DENNIS FITZGERALD,
Melbourne,
Australia.
The price of houses
Sir, – I note PwC has made a budget submission to the Department of Finance (“Reform residential zoned land to help save “housing puzzle”, say PwC ,” June 10th ) requesting the Government to temporarily reduce the 13.5 per cent VAT rate on construction “specifically targeted at new, affordable houses and apartments for first-time buyers”.
It was stated that the average cost of a three-bed, semi-detached house in the greater Dublin area is €408,000 which includes VAT of €48,478 and that a temporary reduction would be “an effective measure to enable viability and increase affordability of newly developed residential property”.
Implicit in this argument is that the removal of the VAT element would result in a reduction of the sale price to €359,522. Ig only that were so.
The reality is that if the market price of a property is €408,000 then that is the price that will be paid for the property.
If the VAT element is removed from the price it has no bearing on the market value of the property. And if the market will bear the sum of €408,000 then that is the price that will be charged.
In effect, the removal of €48,478 would result in that sum going directly to the bottom line of the developer.
In the recent past there have been reductions in VAT charged in the hospitality sector, but there was little or no expectation that those reductions would be passed on to consumers.
The argument was made that in a post-Covid environment, with rising energy and employments costs, the hospitality sector was struggling and required State assistance.
Whatever description can be applied to the construction sector, struggling is not one that immediately springs to mind. – Yours, etc,
PAUL WALSH,
Skerries,
Co Dublin.
Easy on the Mayo
Sir, – Gerry Thornley’s comparison of Leinster Rugby to the Mayo Gaelic football team, in discussing Leinster’s “remarkable success,” is a curious one.
A die-hard Mayo supporter would only consider winning Sam Maguire, the sport’s top prize, as remarkable success.
In any case, equating Leinster – a team packed with centrally contracted internationals, galácticos and vast resources – to a county like Mayo is unfair.
Mayo’s footballers represent a rural county with a smaller population than its main rivals.
They train and play with enormous heart and have done so for decades.
Time and again, they have come to Croke Park and delivered passionate, monster performances.
They have won many big games there in contrast to Caelan Doris saying that at least he, as a Mayo man, has won in Croke Park.
If Gerry Thornley is seeking a more appropriate comparison, perhaps he should look closer to home: both Leinster and the Irish national rugby team have often struggled to deliver when it matters most, despite possessing the talent and infrastructure to succeed.
Rather than telling us that coming up short repeatedly is actually “remarkable success”, perhaps this might be a more worthwhile and fruitful line of inquiry. – Yours, etc,
REAMONN O’LUAN,
Churchtown,
Dublin.
Sir, – The latest misfortune to afflict the intrepid Mayo football team would suggest that they might change the name of the team from Maigh Eo ( Mayo) to Mí-ádh. Mí-ádh Abú! – Yours, etc
PEADAR MAC MÁGHNAIS,
Howth Road,
Dublin.
Getting shirty with T-shirts
Sir, – As I read Rosita Boland’s column (Was it just me who found the slogans on two men’s T-shirts so inappropriate?, June 16th ) I clung to the hope that by the end of the column the matter of two T-shirts with their “clearly visible provocative wording” would at some point in the piece become a joking event for Miss Boland – and for the reader!
I hoped in vain. I mean – as young people like to say: “Really!” “Seriously!” I would add “surely you’re joking”: Miss Boland’s reaction to these T-shirt slogans is extreme and does not make sense.
“Begging for a Pegging” and “Please be 18” (the wording on the T-shirts): it is young people (men in this case) just being young and loose in their way.
Many would not even notice, and those who did would give the matter a yawn. Or maybe a laugh!
Characterising the shirts as a public billboard and inappropriate for an airport terminal and “sexual preferences spelt out” (what is wrong with declaring one’s sexual preference?).
Miss Boland also puts these slogans, in the context of of “racism and homophobia”.
Declaring children at the airport as in danger of some sort because of these shirts, is nonsense and bizarre.
We expect young people to demonstrate what is sometimes childish behaviour, as a means of expressing themselves – of being loose and light. And dare I say happy.
We have an expression in New York city – one used frequently by famous New Yorker, Judge Judy. The word is: “Who Cares”.
In a city of eight million people, this is a valuable resource used to keep issues in perspective.
A response of this magnitude to something as trivial as slogans on some shirts: All that’s left to say is Who Cares. – Yours, etc,
PADDY FITZPATRICK,
Cathedral Ave,
Cork.
Sir, – Rosita Boland “Was it just me who found the slogans on two men’s T-shirts so inappropriate?” states “I have zero interest in seeing adults’ personal sexual preferences literally spelt out for all to see.”
She will be hard pressed not to see such preferences during Pride month. – Yours, etc,
PAT NAUGHTON,
Lucan.
Co Dublin
Sir, – Regarding Rosita Boland’s article: I am seriously thinking of having a customised T-shirt made with the slogan: I read and love/ Rosita Boland’s Opinions. – Yours, etc,
GERRY MORAN,
Coote’s Lane,
Kilkenny.
