Pangur
Donor
No we aren't legally neutral (outside of a mention regarding EU Common Defence (due to some of the misdirection in some of the EU Referendum's), it's Government policy instead. Mainly as it's a handy way to avoid actually spending anything on defence or risking losses.
As options, perhaps a more internationalist view post Independence (there was plenty of work within the framework of the Commonwealth before Dev's moves), or perhaps some event in WW2 changes the Irish position (for example the Dublin bombing ending up killing the Cabinet or the like?). Post WW2, Dev at the time from memory was trying to get a US/Irish defence Agreement due to not wanting to be part of NATO with the NI question, I heavily doubt it could happen, but perhaps some within his Cabinet convince him of this and the NATO option is looked at (perhaps with the proviso of it having to be US forces in any base since the Republic could never accept UK forces)?
There is a bit more to this. Talks did start and the idea was viewed well by all parties in the US bar the folk who ran foreign affairs who scotched the idea. NOTE the issue with NATO post WW2 was not NATO as such but more so British forces in the south.
The easiest way is to have the Soviets routinely violate the Republic's airspace and territorial waters, and vaguely threaten Dublin when they complain. That gives a lot of urgency to concluding some sort of defense deal with the U.S. (NATO is the logical solution, but logic isn't always the geopolitical expedient choice). The U.S. would be more than happy to have access to Irish bases.
See my reply to sparky42
What if FDR really put the screws on Dev in 1940-1 about defending another neutral country...Cousin Seamus from Brooklyn (and his counterparts from Boston, Philly, NOLA, etc) coming back to the auld sod with lots of dollars to spend!!!
USAAF/USN patrol planes operating out of Ireland could have had an interesting impact on the Battle of the Atlantic
You certianly would have thought that to the case.