Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Military Capabilities under Lisbon

Options
  • 12-06-2008 1:06pm
    #1
    RayMc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22 ✭


    “Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities”

    This is a vague-ish statement. Are there any specific targets we have to meet re. military spending, troop numbers, hardware capababilities etc?


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    RayMc wrote: »
    “Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities”

    This is a vague-ish statement. Are there any specific targets we have to meet re. military spending, troop numbers, hardware capababilities etc?
    Nothing in the treaty but once signed it allows detailed proposals to be brought forward though.

    You could also claim it's as vague as the *safegaurds* *cough* given to workers rights.


  • Options
    #3
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    No specific requirements, ie spending.
    'undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities' is already the goal of our military.


  • Options
    #4
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Nope, we can give our soldiers a pack of fire lighters and we've technically fulfilled our obligations. We are not required to increase spending one bit.


  • Options
    #5
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    johnnyq wrote: »
    Nothing in the treaty but once signed it allows detailed proposals to be brought forward though.

    You could also claim it's as vague as the *safegaurds* *cough* given to workers rights.
    And I think we both know which direction the eu is headed lately.

    The french already have military proposals planned for their presidency in two weeks. The BBC leaked them a few days ago


  • Options
    #6
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    johnnyq wrote: »
    And I think we both know which direction the eu is headed lately.

    The french already have military proposals planned for their presidency in two weeks. The BBC leaked them a few days ago

    We retain a veto over military matters don't forget.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    There are no targets. There's no strict requirement that any money be spent either just that the military capabilities be improved.

    Odds are, that will require spending money. Whether it will require spending any more money than we have so far (the military has got a bunch of new kit recently) remains to be seen.

    I view that clause as preventing a nation from saying "Oh well, we have the common defence bits now* why bother spending anything on a military. If anything goes wrong all of the other member states will hop in for us."

    * Common defence bits don't apply to Ireland anyway, so the nation I'm talking about couldn't be us.


  • Options
    #8
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    sink wrote: »
    We retain a veto over military matters don't forget.
    Look how hard the farmers had to fight to get a promise and just a promise (A FF one at that) just to use the veto.

    I wouldn't trust Biffo to stand up to France etc.. on this issue in a fit


  • Options
    #9
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    johnnyq wrote: »
    Look how hard the farmers had to fight to get a promise and just a promise (A FF one at that) just to use the veto.

    I wouldn't trust Biffo to stand up to France etc.. on this issue in a fit

    That is opinion I'm just stating the facts.


  • Options
    #10
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    Lisbon - "Good for Ireland, Good for Europe" is certainly up for discussion as an opinion too.


  • Options
    #11
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    sink wrote: »
    That is opinion I'm just stating the facts.

    So is your opinion on what the original text means. Which in FACT is vague. All else is speculation and opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    johnnyq wrote: »
    Lisbon - "Good for Ireland, Good for Europe" is certainly up for discussion as an opinion too.

    Of course it is, I'm not arguing that. Imo it is, in your opinion it's not, we both have our reasons.


  • Options
    #13
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    sink wrote: »
    That is opinion I'm just stating the facts.

    All "Law" is open to interpretation...


  • Options
    #14
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    All "Law" is open to interpretation...
    I could easily imagine a court ruling that a pack of fire lighters was not enough and not in the *spirit* of the proposal.

    It just says so much about where the EU is headed without the necessary democratic safeguards.


  • Options
    #15
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    johnnyq wrote: »
    I could easily imagine a court ruling that a pack of fire lighters was not enough and not in the *spirit* of the proposal.

    It just says so much about where the EU is headed without the necessary democratic safeguards.

    +1


  • Options
    #16
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    johnnyq wrote: »
    I could easily imagine a court ruling that a pack of fire lighters was not enough and not in the *spirit* of the proposal.

    It just says so much about where the EU is headed without the necessary democratic safeguards.

    Realistically we are already spending money on improving our military, we will continue to do so, we fulfil this term.


  • Options
    #17
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    What democratic safeguards are not in place. I can guarantee you it would be alot harder for 27 democratically elected leaders to agree on using force than one democratically elected leader.


  • Options
    #18
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    johnnyq wrote: »
    I could easily imagine a court ruling that a pack of fire lighters was not enough and not in the *spirit* of the proposal.

    It just says so much about where the EU is headed without the necessary democratic safeguards.
    sink wrote: »
    We retain a veto over military matters don't forget.

    Is he not saying it right? :confused:


  • Options
    #19
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Is he not saying it right? :confused:
    we retain a veto about eu war missions NOT about the proposal to increase capabilities.


  • Options
    #20
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    johnnyq wrote: »
    we retain a veto about eu war missions NOT about the proposal to increase capabilities.

    We retain all veto's on military matters, the courts are independent anyway we can't influence them. The only military veto we don't keep is to do with the structure of the EDA and battlegroups.


  • Options
    #21
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    I could easily imagine a court ruling that a pack of fire lighters was not enough and not in the *spirit* of the proposal.

    It just says so much about where the EU is headed without the necessary democratic safeguards.

    The ECJ cannot rule on matters involving defence. The EU Parliament cannot rule on matters involving defence. On the Council we have a veto.

    The EDA is an advisory and research body only and has no power to issue binding targets.

    People have complained this means that we're signing up to this "with reservations". They're quite right, we are signing up to this "with reservations" - and those reservations (we're a small neutral country with no militaristic tradition) are well known and accepted by our EU partners.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Is it true that Ireland has ever exercised a veto? I heard that somewhere, I think on the news. Probably wrong, I would imagine.


  • Options
    #23
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    turgon wrote: »
    Is it true that Ireland has ever exercised a veto? I heard that somewhere, I think on the news. Probably wrong, I would imagine.

    That is because we negotiate to find consensus. Things generally don't get put to a vote without consensus.


  • Options
    #24
    colly10
    Registered Users Posts: 3,002 ✭✭✭colly10


    sink wrote: »
    We retain a veto over military matters don't forget.

    When it comes to improving our military I doubt we can really veto when we will agree to it by accepting the treaty today


  • Options
    #25
    VoidStarNull
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭VoidStarNull


    turgon wrote: »
    Is it true that Ireland has ever exercised a veto? I heard that somewhere, I think on the news. Probably wrong, I would imagine.

    If the Lisbon Treaty passes, meetings and votes of the Council of Ministers will be held in public. So everyone will get to see exactly when and what we choose to veto.


  • Options
    #26
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    VoidStarNull wrote: »
    If the Lisbon Treaty passes, meetings and votes of the Council of Ministers will be held in public. So everyone will get to see exactly when and what we choose to veto.

    Yes but they could have done that with one simple ammendment not a big treaty


  • Options
    #27
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Yes but they could have done that with one simple ammendment not a big treaty
    And then there'd be another amendment, and then another, and then another, and then...

    The treaty is designed to outline a plan for restructuring the Union. Doing it piecemeal is the least efficent way possible.


  • Options
    #28
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Yes but they could have done that with one simple ammendment not a big treaty

    Currently the treaties can't be amended by any other means than another treaty. The Lisbon treaty allows single amendments to be made at a time. This is the much criticized 'self amending clause' which has unjustly come under fire as the amendments will still require ratification by member states through the usual methods. So what you are asking can't be done without the Lisbon treaty or another treaty. If Lisbon is rejected it will take several years before any other treaty is even thought of.


  • Options
    #29
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    sink wrote: »
    Currently the treaties can't be amended by any other means than another treaty. The Lisbon treaty allows single amendments to be made at a time. This is the much criticized 'self amending clause' which has unjustly come under fire as the amendments will still require ratification by member states through the usual methods. So what you are asking can't be done without the Lisbon treaty or another treaty. If Lisbon is rejected it will take several years before any other treaty is even thought of.

    My bad, though surely it could have been a single lined treaty. Theres no minimum of so many words surely.


  • Options
    #30
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    My bad, though surely it could have been a single lined treaty. Theres no minimum of so many words surely.
    What do you mean? As in a single line saying, "This treaty can be amended without referendum?".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    My bad, though surely it could have been a single lined treaty. Theres no minimum of so many words surely.

    I'm not entirely sure what the legal differences between a treaty and an amendment are, but I have been told that a treaty is far more costly and difficult to draw up because it involves thousands of lawyers/solicitors and diplomats. Where as an amendment can be dealt with exclusively by elected officials on advice from legal professionals. I was told this by a diplomat so I take his word for it. That is why they lump everything together in one treaty.


Advertisement