Lisbon Treaty and the DF

Steyr

Just been reading on it and apparently if we vote yes it will call for increased military spending by all member nations along the likes of NATO standard, surely this could only be better for the DF as a whole.

Anybody have any thoughts/feelings on this?

Lockstep

TBH the Lisbon treaty seems so open to interpretation that I'm extremely wary of it.
While I see a lot of good things on it, there is the fact few know what it's about.


I saw a debate at NUIG with Enda Kenny, Michael D. Higgins, Joe Higgins etc,
Good stuff but still horribly ambiguous.

I keep hearing about increased military spending being an issue of the Lisbon treaty but I've only ever heard it used by the SWP and SP, so I'm unsure if it's actually a real thing likely to happen.

tribulus

If increased military spending means they offer more cadetships then I'm all for it lol.

cp251

The government are playing down the whole military spending thing because of our false neutrality stance. They go on about the farcial 'triple lock' being maintained in the leaflet they issued.

In reality the antis have it right. It will mean further military spending and potential involvement in EU military operations. The antis think this is a bad thing. I don't as it happens.

My main reason for voting in favour of Lisbon is the massed ranks of the antis. The kind of people who are against Lisbon are the very people few of us would want running the country. Which is proved by their election lack of success. Sinn Fein being notable amongst them. Simplistic I know but there you are.

Lockstep

Some of the groups I know of against it:
SWP/SW: anti liberalisation
Sinn Fein: No clue here
Various right wing Catholic organisations: Claims secular and evil EU will force abortion on us.

Steyr

Im all for it if it means more money to the DF and more upgraded equipement especially for the Navy and Air Corps.

segaBOY

Libertas also against it see libertas.org

Steyr

cp251 wrote: »

The government are playing down the whole military spending thing because of our false neutrality stance.

Yes apparently our so called Neutrality will disappear, oh no!:pac: Bye bye Neutrality no more fence watching!!!:)

Nuttzz

dont vote yes on one issue, i.e. neutrality, look at the whole thing

Lockstep

Nuttzz wrote: »

dont vote yes on one issue, i.e. neutrality, look at the whole thing

I'll agree with that.

There are a lot of points I agree with but more that I do not.

Methinks a lot of people all over Ireland look at one point and then think "wow, cool!" before looking over the others.

Steyr

kickoutthejams wrote: »

There are a lot of points I agree with but more that I do not.

I also agree.

daithicarr

the only reason i have heard why we should vote for the treaty is because who is against it, thats hardly a good enough reason to do something , there seems to have been very little debate on the issues involved. it seems that if we sign up we would be expected to put 2% of our GDP to defense spending. i dont know what the penalties are if we dont.

but as of 2007 figures we spend 0.7% of our GDP or 1.3Billion dollars, to go to 3% is nearly treble the budget, or about 3.714 billion dollars. going from 1.3 to 3.7 is a massive jump, to be honest do we really need that much? can we afford it, we collect a lot less revenue than other European nations with our low income tax and very corporate tax so the money will have to come from somewhere.

i am sure the defense forces could do with more equipment etc, but this much extra spending is a needless luxury and a waste when compared to what that money could do for education or health or investment in our economy.

Nuttzz

daithicarr wrote: »

the only reason i have heard why we should vote for the treaty is because who is against it, thats hardly a good enough reason to do something , there seems to have been very little debate on the issues involved. it seems that if we sign up we would be expected to put 2% of our GDP to defense spending. i dont know what the penalties are if we dont.

but as of 2007 figures we spend 0.7% of our GDP or 1.3Billion dollars, to go to 3% is nearly treble the budget, or about 3.714 billion dollars. going from 1.3 to 3.7 is a massive jump, to be honest do we really need that much? can we afford it, we collect a lot less revenue than other European nations with our low income tax and very corporate tax so the money will have to come from somewhere.

i am sure the defense forces could do with more equipment etc, but this much extra spending is a needless luxury and a waste when compared to what that money could do for education or health or investment in our economy.

take some out of the €16 billion social welfare budget, you know the same budget that was paying the scum bag warring criminals in limerick "jobseekers allowance"

ChapOfDRyans

daithicarr wrote: »

the only reason i have heard why we should vote for the treaty is because who is against it, thats hardly a good enough reason to do something , there seems to have been very little debate on the issues involved. it seems that if we sign up we would be expected to put 2% of our GDP to defense spending. i dont know what the penalties are if we dont.

but as of 2007 figures we spend 0.7% of our GDP or 1.3Billion dollars, to go to 3% is nearly treble the budget, or about 3.714 billion dollars. going from 1.3 to 3.7 is a massive jump, to be honest do we really need that much? can we afford it, we collect a lot less revenue than other European nations with our low income tax and very corporate tax so the money will have to come from somewhere.

i am sure the defense forces could do with more equipment etc, but this much extra spending is a needless luxury and a waste when compared to what that money could do for education or health or investment in our economy.

well we would raise taxes especially corporation tax as our's is the lowest in the E.U

Cut the scumbag allowence and other stupid things that are a waste

daithicarr

it could be argued that increasing corporate tax could be conter productive, it would make us less competative. sure there are some scumbags getting dole when they should be working, but there plenty of people getting social welfare payments for various reasons and often quite legitimatly.
will buying more guns and military hardware really have much of an improvement on our society? most social welfare is needed, like old age pensions etc. trebling our military expenditure when we have no threat seems a complete waste.

personally id like to see an economy on a scandanavian model, where there is more taxation and more money reinvested in the economy and social services and public services including the military.

what do we need for the extra 2.3 billion dollars, money which could be much better spent on our countrys future.

daithicarr

daithicarr wrote: »

it could be argued that increasing corporate tax could be conter productive, it would make us less competative. sure there are some scumbags getting dole when they should be working, but there plenty of people getting social welfare payments for various reasons and often quite legitimatly.
will buying more guns and military hardware really have much of an improvement on our society? most social welfare is needed, like old age pensions etc. trebling our military expenditure when we have no threat seems a complete waste.

personally id like to see an economy on a scandanavian model, where there is more taxation and more money reinvested in the economy and social services and public services including the military.

what do we need for the extra 2.3 billion dollars, money which could be much better spent on our countrys future.

Granted, the 3.6 billion mark is unlikely ever to be reached. Though a good bit of money would be well used in the DF. Money spent on heli's to support troops here and overseas, Naval service getting new and improved off shore patrol vessels (that would pay off as they would combat drug trafficking) and various logistics equipment (naval and land assets) to help deploy troops etc. etc.

Don't forget the chronic state some of the barracks' are in! A lick of paint and more facilities and you would be laughing!

daithicarr

Oh no doubt the defence forces could do with more investment, but is it really a priority for that much extra investment, even doubling the current amount?

Is it really a priority for our nation?

On another point , we could have 100 ships out there, the drugs would still keep flowing in. no matter what we do there is no way to meaningfully reduce or stop that flow

twinytwo

daithicarr wrote: »

it could be argued that increasing corporate tax could be conter productive, it would make us less competative. sure there are some scumbags getting dole when they should be working, but there plenty of people getting social welfare payments for various reasons and often quite legitimatly.
will buying more guns and military hardware really have much of an improvement on our society? most social welfare is needed, like old age pensions etc. trebling our military expenditure when we have no threat seems a complete waste.

personally id like to see an economy on a scandanavian model, where there is more taxation and more money reinvested in the economy and social services and public services including the military.

what do we need for the extra 2.3 billion dollars, money which could be much better spent on our countrys future.

end of the day forget about increased military etc etc . we lose our right to vote as the government votes for us which would be grand if we had honest politicians. but seeing one is a crooked as the last !! we lose an awful lot if we vote yes. personally i like being a thorn in the side of germany and france it knocks them off their horse every once in a while. All you ever hear off the government is the good things about the treaty. And considering they can n ever agree on anything but suddenly they are all go for this makes me think twice. the way i see it we lose a lot more than we gain. y fix something that aint broke.

Prolatarian

There are special provisons built into the treaty regarding Irish ''nutrality'' and such.Basicly we get an opt out in regard to military matters.thats why there arnt any posters saying we'll lose our nutrality.

Steyr

Prolatarian wrote: »

There are special provisons built into the treaty regarding Irish ''nutrality'' and such.

Why is there talk of our so called "Neutrality" disappearing then? I believe we should be very involved in Military matters.

twinytwo

Steyr wrote: »

Why is there talk of our so called "Neutrality" disappearing then? I believe we should be very involved in Military matters.

why is that?.. you would like us to get involvd in fight s that have nothing to do with us?

Steyr

twinytwo wrote: »

why is that?.. you would like us to get involvd in fight s that have nothing to do with us?

Were supposed to look out for eachothers backs in the EU it says if one Nation is attacked then the rest come to its aid.

mr.miagi

its starting to sound like a "you scratch my back and ill scratch yours" affair