How many people.....

Running Bing

Really and truly understand the Lisbon treaty proposals?



Now if you do, and you really believe it is what is best for this country then go ahead and vote yes.



But if people do not fully understand this there is no way they can vote yes on it imo. Which leads me to the question, if people dont really understand this (and Im talking about really understanding it, not an understanding based on face value and superficial politician speak) why are they so eager to vote yes?

johnnyq

I said in a playful parody in another thread that for some it may be down to brainwashing! - not true (must clarify that for sink - he's a sensitive type)

But of course people will believe what they're told like good children and automatically think that a proposal with the word 'Europe' on it must automatically be good.

Then there's the brigade that think we owe the EU everything for our existance and must sign away everything in eternal gratitude for what is most certainly our own economic success (with investment from europe -which they will now get back since we contribute more than we get now)

Also members of FF are being bullied into voting yes in order to keep their political existance alive. Brian Cowen promised to punish those TDs also not seen to be fully selling the treaty.

Sigh

Attractive Nun

Well, I don't think it's wholly unreasonable for a person to vote on the issue based on some easy-to-notice facts:

For a moderate, generally pro-EU voter to note that the Lisbon treaty is being supported by all the moderate, generally pro-EU parties - and being opposed by the significantly less moderate, generally less pro-EU parties - is obviously going to influence their vote.

Presumably having read or heard some, even superficial, explanations of what the treaty means, they will also probably realise that it is primarily concerned with minor(ish) structural and institutional reforms, rather than any major moral issues which might cause offense.

In addition, it is probably obvious enough to most people that a 'NO' vote will have some negative consequences for Ireland's image in Europe - and therefore needs to be justified properly.

---

Obviously it's not the ideal way to make your decision, but I would regard the above reasons as a decent enough justification for voting 'YES'.

For the record, I feel I have a reasonable understanding of the treaty, and I would be voting yes except I will be out of the country.

marbar

well as far as i'm concerned it should work both ways.
fair enough if you don't know enough about it, but then don't vote. why would you vote no to something you don't fully understand? that's just as silly as voting yes to something you don't think you know enough about

turgon

One of the posters here (cant remember exatly but theres a fleming in his user name i think) said he was voting YES simply because Sinn Fein was advocating NO. Democracy in action

marbar

i know a few with that opinion. given that they generally have been shown not to be clued in and the fact that they opposed our membership of the eu in the first place, i think it's a pretty good way to go

johnnyq

marbar wrote: »

i know a few with that opinion. given that they generally have been shown not to be clued in and the fact that they opposed our membership of the eu in the first place, i think it's a pretty good way to go

Ok but it really would be no different to someone saying I'm going to vote No because the Catholic Church says vote Yes and I don't like the Catholic Church so i must do the opposite of what they say.

Look at the treaty ffs!!!

marbar

johnnyq wrote: »

Ok but it really would be no different to someone saying I'm going to vote No because the Catholic Church says vote Yes and I don't like the Catholic Church so i must do the opposite of what they say.

Look at the treaty ffs!!!

problem is that is not likely for most people. ever try read it??!! they'll make decisions on something else. the easiest way though is to keep watching telly/listening to radio and here both sides argue then make your decisions. they cover the most important parts and people can make decisions based on what they believe

johnnyq

marbar wrote: »

problem is that is not likely for most people. ever try read it??!! they'll make decisions on something else. the easiest way though is to keep watching telly/listening to radio and here both sides argue then make your decisions. they cover the most important parts and people can make decisions based on what they believe

It's sooooo convenient for our eurocrat masters to make the treaty so complicated that we must believe their puppets isn't it!

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

It's sooooo convenient for our eurocrat masters to make the treaty so complicated that we must believe their puppets isn't it!

I find it ironic that if the opposite were true, we both would probably on the same side arguing that the treaty was too vague.

johnnyq

Well if the treaty said something like,
Section 1: EU Military
"All EU military actions will be for peacekeeping only and subject to approval by the UN security council"

instead of commitments to 'robust' and 'rapid repsonses' to vague scenarios as outlined by subsection 3.4.3.6 which then refers to clause A-F and to other treaty subclauses which no doubt can be used to justify virtually any actions,

then in fact I think we would be singing from the same hymnsheet!

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

Well if the treaty said something like,
Section 1: EU Military
"All EU military actions will be for peacekeeping only and subject to approval by the UN security council"

instead of commitments to 'robust' and 'rapid repsonses' to vague scenarios as outlined by subsection 3.4.3.6 which then refers to clause A-F and to other treaty subclauses which no doubt can be used to justify virtually any actions,

then in fact I think we would be singing from the same hymnsheet!

We'd be arguing over the definition of "military action" and "peacekeeping", I suspect, as well as when a "military action" (however defined) was actually an "EU military action" as opposed to one taken by a group of EU member states.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

Brian Cowan and Champagne Charlie are hardly inspiring us to read it considering they openly admit not to reading it themselves - That's the Taoiseach and our soon to be out of a job EU commisioner by the way. All Charlie was short of saying was - Well ehhhhh someone gave me the gist of it.

Reading it and understanding it are very different, if there's any doubt we must vote no.

Misnomers galore in this thread too I see.
The military thing is dealt with.
We are specefically barred from the common defence period.
All mention of it is to do with other countries participating in it.
Nothing to do with us.

As regards reading the treaty-What are ye asking here,that your priest should know line for line the bible?
Thats a load of cobblers.
The politicians drafted this treaty with protracted negotiations.Their civilservants worded it like Tolstoy.
To suggest the meaning of the treaty's provisions are unknown to our government or the referendum commission is tin foil hat stuff.

LostinBlanch

Deleted User wrote: »

M
The politicians drafted this treaty with protracted negotiations.Their civilservants worded it like Tolstoy.

I have to take issue with this one. Tolstoy is readable, long but readable.

oscarBravo

turgon wrote: »

One of the posters here (cant remember exatly but theres a fleming in his user name i think) said he was voting YES simply because Sinn Fein was advocating NO. Democracy in action

Just FYI, that was about the twelfth re-registration of a serial muppet and troll called casey212. Do yourself a favour and ignore anything he says.

nhughes100

Deleted User wrote: »

As regards reading the treaty-What are ye asking here,that your priest should know line for line the bible?
Thats a load of cobblers.
The politicians drafted this treaty with protracted negotiations.Their civilservants worded it like Tolstoy.
To suggest the meaning of the treaty's provisions are unknown to our government or the referendum commission is tin foil hat stuff.

Who's asking for line for line off by heart? Would you vote for a best film without having seen it? would you vote for the world's best book despite having never read it? But some guys assured you it was a great read despite the face that they never read it either.

I'd have more faith in priests knowing the bible then politicians understanding Lisbon.

Blindly following belongs to the flat Earth society.

oscarBravo

nhughes100 wrote: »

But some guys assured you it was a great read despite the face that they never read it either.

Sigh. There's a difference between "never read it" and "haven't read it from cover to cover".

I'd really love if we could make this forum a strawman-free zone. I can see that's a lot to ask.

nhughes100

So will the entire treaty be implemented if passed or just the bits our politicians read?

What exactly is your strawman comment about?

nhughes100

nhughes100 wrote: »

I'd have more faith in priests knowing the bible then politicians understanding Lisbon.

Thats tin foil hat stuff.
As I said this government was intricately involved in drafting the Lisbon Treaty.
To even try to suggest they don't know it is ludicrous in the extreme.

sink

nhughes100 wrote: »

So will the entire treaty be implemented if passed or just the bits our politicians read?

What exactly is your strawman comment about?

Very commonly used analogy. Read more here.

djpbarry

johnnyq wrote: »

But of course people will believe what they're told like good children and automatically think that a proposal with the word 'Europe' on it must automatically be good.

Then there's those on the 'No' side who automatically think that any proposal with the word 'Europe' in/on it must be BAD.

johnnyq wrote: »

It's sooooo convenient for our eurocrat masters to make the treaty so complicated that we must believe their puppets isn't it!

:rolleyes: The truth is out there johnnyq.

johnnyq wrote: »

Well if the treaty said something like,
Section 1: EU Military
"All EU military actions will be for peacekeeping only and subject to approval by the UN security council"

And it still wouldn't apply to Ireland. Can't understand why the issue of neutrality springs up anytime anyone mentions the EU.

nhughes100 wrote: »

Reading it and understanding it are very different, if there's any doubt we must vote no.

You can't possibly expect people to have absolutely no doubts about their understanding of the treaty - it's just not realistic. If, on the other hand, people genuinely don't understand what they're voting on, then they shouldn't be voting.

nhughes100 wrote: »

Would you vote for a best film without having seen it? would you vote for the world's best book despite having never read it? But some guys assured you it was a great read despite the face that they never read it either.

When's the last time you got on a plane? Did you do a degree in physics and study the aircraft's design before you boarded? Or did you just trust people when they assured you that the plane wouldn't fall out of the sky?

nhughes100

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats tin foil hat stuff.
As I said this government was intricately involved in drafting the Lisbon Treaty.
To even try to suggest they don't know it is ludicrous in the extreme.

You have a lot more faith in the government then I have. I didn't say they don't know it, I said it was incredible to think that two of the most prominent Irish politicians admitted to not reading it in it's entirety.

Thanks to sink for clearing up what strawman implied. I can't figure out why it was used, the topic is how many people clearly understand the treaty? I clearly stated that I don't know how one in high public office could urge voters to vote yes when they themselves have not read the treaty they are advocating. It doesn't make any sense. It is not off-topic or is it stating that Abortion will be brought in by the back door. When these treaties are challanged and brought to court weeks could be spent arguing over one word or sentence. I sure hope the Attorney General has read it.

I totally disagree that if people don't understand the treaty then they shouldn't vote at all. They should vote no, voting no sends a message back to the powers that be that we are not to be taken for granted and we will not be bullied into blindly following.

As for the Airplane comment, I dunno maybe the fact the hundreds and thousands of planes take off and land every year without a hitch may have appeased my suspicion. This government does not share that same level of credibility.

nhughes100

nhughes100 wrote: »

You have a lot more faith in the government then I have. I didn't say they don't know it, I said it was incredible to think that two of the most prominent Irish politicians admitted to not reading it in it's entirety.

Why? They instructed the drafting of it.

I clearly stated that I don't know how one in high public office could urge voters to vote yes when they themselves have not read the treaty they are advocating.

You see theres the straw man there-the splitting of a non existant hair if you like.You ignoring the fact that these people drafted the treaty in favour of some pedantry regarding the reading of it word for word..

It doesn't make any sense. It is not off-topic or is it stating that Abortion will be brought in by the back door. When these treaties are challanged and brought to court weeks could be spent arguing over one word or sentence. I sure hope the Attorney General has read it.

Lol-On what basis could there be a challenge? Come on tell us- you are are expressing an un backed up opinion there minus fact.

I totally disagree that if people don't understand the treaty then they shouldn't vote at all. They should vote no, voting no sends a message back to the powers that be that we are not to be taken for granted and we will not be bullied into blindly following.

I'd actually suggest...perish the thought ...that they might read the referendum commision leaflet.. then vote.

As for the Airplane comment, I dunno maybe the fact the hundreds and thousands of planes take off and land every year without a hitch may have appeased my suspicion. This government does not share that same level of credibility.

Fine Gael,Labour,most of the unions,IBEC and many many more don't have credibility either?
One big conspiracy then is it?

Meirleach

Deleted User wrote: »

Fine Gael,Labour,most of the unions,IBEC and many many more don't have credibility either?

In my own humble opinion....no.

Rofl.
I suppose eventually the last resort of the unreasonable[where unreasonable in this case means without reason or mores the point badly reasoned resulting in an inability to take valid reasoned points] is to reject the reasonable.

ixtlan

nhughes100 wrote: »

As for the Airplane comment, I dunno maybe the fact the hundreds and thousands of planes take off and land every year without a hitch may have appeased my suspicion. This government does not share that same level of credibility.

One could argue that the EU has progressed successfully over several decades without anyone taking cases to the EU courts to twist the meaning of treaties into something which was never expected when the treaties were signed.

Obviously there have been cases that went to the court, but they were never massive shocks, and in fact they usually supported the cause of the underprivileged.

Why then with such a good record, block the continuing development of the EU? One might argue that past performance is no guarantee of future performance, and that is true, but in the absence of a guarantee past performance is still considered the best indicator of future performance.

Ix.

nhughes100

"Lol-On what basis could there be a challenge? Come on tell us- you are are expressing an un backed up opinion there minus fact"

Do you think it so unlikely that there could be a high court/European court challange to an aspect of a referendum. I don't know what you find so funny, it's not like there haven't been constitutional challenges before. Ok maybe I should have used the phrase if the treaty is challanged, but it is not unlikely that someone out of 400 million people may mount a legal challange to it.

And tell us why we should believe the main political parties? IBEC? Siptu? all in bed with each other since social partnership.

I don't think it is unreasonable to vote no on the basis of not enough clearly defined information being available. And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect public representatives to have read the treaty. It's not like most of them aren't solicitors.

nhughes100

nhughes100 wrote: »

"Lol-On what basis could there be a challenge? Come on tell us- you are are expressing an un backed up opinion there minus fact"

Do you think it so unlikely that there could be a high court/European court challange to an aspect of a referendum. I don't know what you find so funny, it's not like there haven't been constitutional challenges before. Ok maybe I should have used the phrase if the treaty is challanged, but it is not unlikely that someone out of 400 million people may mount a legal challange to it.

Just a reminder...I asked you for an example not a repeat of the strawman.

And tell us why we should believe the main political parties? IBEC? Siptu? all in bed with each other since social partnership.

Transparency for a start.They back up their assertions with facts.
Theres no cover up with their opinions,they're all there in black and white and how those opinions were formed.

I don't think it is unreasonable to vote no on the basis of not enough clearly defined information being available. And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect public representatives to have read the treaty. It's not like most of them aren't solicitors.

This auto repeat of the strawman thing you were challenged on already and conveniently ignored is not helping your position.
Thats transparency versus a lack of transparency for you.
You're being asked to back up your assertions with facts and you give none other than vague baseless opinions.

I'd have more respect for a standpoint that just plain came out with an opinion that holds water ie like say that their stance is,they don't like the EU because they think it's becoming gradually too federalist for them.
If thats your position why don't you just say it? And just let people respectfully disagree.
You could just do that you know without making up stuff.

I see a few posters making up stuff in a few threads here as if inteligent readers are silly people who don't expect some substance to the make believe.
Believe me that type of carry on never works in an inteligent debate.

nhughes100

Try reading the topic of the post before accusing me of anything and I think you need to refresh your memory of what strawman implies.

I did not ignore the strawman comment, in fact I challanged it. Again read what the topic of the thread is.

My opinion on the EU is off topic but is on record in other threads.

I haven't made up anything, the fact remains that the Taoiseach of the day and our EU commissioner are on record as not having read the Lisbon treaty on which they are demanding a yes vote. If you think this is fine then be my guest, if I was in the Yes camp then I would be holding my head in my hands saying thats another fine mess they've got us into. This is not some book review, this is a treaty that will change our country if passed.

turgon

Well nhughes100, would you not consider reading all the provisions and knowing all the facts as equal to having just read the legal text that describes them? Plus - the consolidated treaties are BIG BOOKS, and I think it would be better of Brian Cowen to spend more time governing than reading a book that can be understood in far less words.

nhughes100

nhughes100 wrote: »

I did not ignore the strawman comment, in fact I challanged it. Again read what the topic of the thread is.

No you didn't answer it you repeated it.

My opinion on the EU is off topic but is on record in other threads.

You mean you don't want it pointed out that if you are Eurosceptic for Eurosceptic sake then why not just say that or better still be open about your scepticism at all times and if it's a debate you really want rather than a soapbox for your strawman then present clear arguments for your position.

I haven't made up anything, the fact remains that the Taoiseach of the day and our EU commissioner are on record as not having read the Lisbon treaty on which they are demanding a yes vote.

And there you go with your strawman again not knowing the difference between someone saying they haven't gone through reams of text in it's final book format and someone who was actually intricately involved in it's drafting so knows it's provisions inside out better than most.

If you think this is fine then be my guest, if I was in the Yes camp then I would be holding my head in my hands saying thats another fine mess they've got us into. This is not some book review,

Let me present you with a little challenge then.
Point me to any aspect of this treaty that Cowen has been caught out on as being wrong on.
If you can't do that...

this is a treaty that will change our country if passed.

How?
Like a few other people frequenting this place lately thinking it's a soapbox for any aul rant,you are awfull fond of making sweeping statements of your opinion dressed up with no facts.

MSporty

Vote no and things should stay the way they are, the EU is grand as is, why do they have to keep tinkering with it. Anyway can anyone tell me in a couple of sentences what the end game of the EU is?

turgon

In fairness, I cold not envisage the Eu becoming a federal state, which you are hinting at. Citizens wouldnt buy it.

MSporty

turgon wrote: »

In fairness, I cold not envisage the Eu becoming a federal state, which you are hinting at. Citizens wouldnt buy it.

Not hinting, just wondering what the final version of the EU is going to be?

sink

I believe the Lisbon treaty will be about as far as the EU will go. Maybe some more specific areas will become greater competences of the EU such as defence. But I don't see any need to reform the structure any further and neither do the majority of politicians who are ratifying it. The EU came into being with the Maastricht treaty the Lisbon treaty is the final building block to making the EU work the way it's supposed to. Perhaps the constitution could be try to be passed at some stage far in the future but that is unlikely to happen for decades.

MSporty

sink wrote: »

I believe the Lisbon treaty will be about as far as the EU will go. Maybe some more specific areas will become greater competences of the EU such as defence. But I don't see any need to reform the structure any further and neither do the majority of politicians who are ratifying it. The EU came into being with the Maastricht treaty the Lisbon treaty is the final building block to making the EU work the way it's supposed to.

Thats what they say about every new treaty!! Can we not just tell them to F off at this stage, were grand the way we are thanks :-)

turgon

sink wrote: »

I believe the Lisbon treaty will be about as far as the EU will go.

I would hope so.

sink

Well the EU has grown a huge amount since Maastricht and needed reform. Maastricht was largely negotiated before the collapse of the soviet union and no-one predicted the countries behind the iron curtain would be free enough to join any time soon.

The growth rate will seriously decline for the next while. Only the balkans are likely to be entering the EU within the next decade. The reform treaty should be enough to cope with any future enlargements. Maybe if Russia ever joins there will be a need for more reform but this is highly unlikely to happen.

johnnyq

djpbarry wrote: »

Then there's those on the 'No' side who automatically think that any proposal with the word 'Europe' in/on it must be BAD.

Well i'm not one of them. I've done research into it and unhappy with some of what I have read. It's a bit naive to think that any proposal is automatically good ('but it comes with sweeties' I heard a YFG person say today:mad:).

:rolleyes: The truth is out there johnnyq.

Yes but it's about as understandable as this

Can't understand why the issue of neutrality springs up anytime anyone mentions the EU.

Can't understand it? It's pretty logical
Step 1: Ireland is 'neutral'
Step 2: Ireland is part of the EU
Step 3: The EU makes a military decision (which Ireland is still part of even if there are no irish troops)
Step 4: Decision is not a neutral one e.g. 'preventing' terrorism in a country
(Irish government could veto this as it is against neutrality, but wait!!!)
Step 5: Ireland is no longer 'neutral'

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

Can't understand it? It's pretty logical
Step 1: Ireland is 'neutral'
Step 2: Ireland is part of the EU
Step 3: The EU makes a military decision (which Ireland is still part of even if there are no irish troops)
Step 4: Decision is not a neutral one e.g. 'preventing' terrorism in a country
(Irish government could veto this as it is against neutrality, but wait!!!)
Step 5: Ireland is no longer 'neutral'

Utter Rubbish.
We may be all members of the EU,it may facilitate certain of it members to participate in a defence co operation aperatus but we have nothing to do with it as there is a triple lock on that sort of activity.

• It must be approved by the Government
• It must pass a vote of the Dáil
• It must have the approval of the UNSC

Knowing how difficult that last one is to get,nevermind the middle one,your assertions on non neutrality are opinionated rubbish in the extreme.

ixtlan

johnnyq wrote: »

Step 3: The EU makes a military decision (which Ireland is still part of even if there are no irish troops)
Step 4: Decision is not a neutral one e.g. 'preventing' terrorism in a country
(Irish government could veto this as it is against neutrality, but wait!!!)
Step 5: Ireland is no longer 'neutral'

Did I miss a step? What happens after the "wait!!"? Any military decision would as far as I know require unanimous agreement. You agree that we could veto it.... so why are we not neutral?

Ireland's neutrality really is some kind of sacred cow. Many neutral countries are very militaristic, ie Sweden and Switzerland, in the sense that while they are neutral they are ready to defend themselves.

Being neutral does not mean we have to disagree with anything related to the military. Remember the UN is on record as saying they want the EU battlegroups ready to deploy under the auspices of the UN, since the UN does not now and never will have a standing army.

Maybe we need a debate on what "neutrality" means. Many people seem to interpret it as having no army, buying no weapons, forcing other countries to do likewise, and presumeably having no countries sending any troops on UN missions.

I interpret neutrality as Ireland commiting to nothing in the military arena unless we specifically decide that we want to on a case-by-case basis. Again I despair at our crazy holier-than-thou neutrality that has surrendered our military policy to the control of the UN security council.

Ix.

johnnyq

Deleted User wrote: »

Blah.

You are obviously very selective in what it means to be a citizen of the EU. We huddle under it for the world trade talks (seemingly at our expense lol!) but if a military atrocity occured under the EU flag then no we in Ireland weren't involved at all, yet did nothing to stop it though we had a veto.

If i were the victim of that atrocity I certainly wouldn't be exempting Ireland from blame -which is what neutrality is supposed to be after all

ixtlan wrote:

Did I miss a step? What happens after the "wait!!"?

May I have a drumroll please.................

And the result is.........



More EU horsetrading and burocracy. (A bit of a let down wasn't it;))

ixtlan wrote:

Any military decision would as far as I know require unanimous agreement. You agree that we could veto it.... so why are we not neutral?Ireland's neutrality really is some kind of sacred cow.

I totally agree! It's very hard to maintain any plausable sense of neutrality when dealing with Fianna Fail. But when you're part of an organisation which is making military decisions then it's virtually impossible to be neutral since you will be implicated simply by being part of the organisation.

The best case scenario to maintain Ireland's neutrality in my view following the Lisbon Treaty (if passed) and the militarisation that comes with it would be to veto any mission without UN security council backing simply because worldwide consensus is the nearest we can get to proper neutrality.

Whether Ireland really is or should be neutral is an open question for me. I would just view our governments stance on the issue post lisbon as totally hypocritical since you just know they won't have the backbone to veto EU war missions.

Many neutral countries are very militaristic, ie Sweden and Switzerland, in the sense that while they are neutral they are ready to defend themselves.

Being neutral does not mean we have to disagree with anything related to the military. Remember the UN ....
Maybe we need a debate on what "neutrality" means.

I totally agree

ixtlan

johnnyq wrote: »

if a military atrocity occured under the EU flag then no we in Ireland weren't involved at all, yet did nothing to stop it though we had a veto.

If i were the victim of that atrocity I certainly wouldn't be exempting Ireland from blame -which is what neutrality is supposed to be after all

I think it's overly dramatic to talk of possible EU military atrocities. A far more likely scenario is a military atrocity taking place which the EU/UN will not get involved in. Witness the Macedonia peacekeeping operation running under NATO because even though everyone agrees it's a good idea China will not approve it because they recognised Taiwan! Would Ireland be exempt from blame if we vetoed an operation that could prevent a civil war? Also... I'm not sure I get the blame point. It sounds like you are saying neutrality is about making sure nobody ever blames you for anything. Never getting involved can involve a lot of blame... Rwanda springs to mind.

johnnyq wrote: »

The best case scenario to maintain Ireland's neutrality in my view following the Lisbon Treaty (if passed) and the militarisation that comes with it would be to veto any mission without UN security council backing simply because worldwide consensus is the nearest we can get to proper neutrality.

This is an interesting argument. I suppose it is something that could be turned into a formal policy. I would be 100% against it (see the Macedonia case), but it has the merit that it might convince the neutrality paranoids... but on second though perhaps not.

johnnyq wrote: »

Whether Ireland really is or should be neutral is an open question for me. I would just view our governments stance on the issue post lisbon as totally hypocritical since you just know they won't have the backbone to veto EU war missions.

This too is an interesting point. It is perhaps a valid concern that we could be pressured into agreeing to an operation maybe in return for support on some other agenda. However 2 points... Firstly that is still Ireland agreeing for itself to approve, not being forced. If horsetrading takes place on other issues that's still Ireland's choice, and the people can vote out the government if it upsets them enough. Secondly and more importantly, I'd like to inject a note of practical reality. If all 27 countries agree on an operation, it's going to be pretty much a no-brainer, like Macedonia. Ireland does not have a monopoly on ethics, justice and doing the right thing.

And I feel I must add for those people who may not read all the posts... At present (and after Lisbon) Ireland cannot send any troops on missions without UN approval. What we are discussing here is whether Ireland might approve EU military operations without UN approval, so that the other countries who actually have sovereign control of their armies (unlike ourselves) might send troops.

Ix.

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

You are obviously very selective in what it means to be a citizen of the EU. We huddle under it for the world trade talks (seemingly at our expense lol!) but if a military atrocity occured under the EU flag then no we in Ireland weren't involved at all, yet did nothing to stop it though we had a veto.

If i were the victim of that atrocity I certainly wouldn't be exempting Ireland from blame -which is what neutrality is supposed to be after all

More Utter Rubbish.Some Countries within the EU do want to cooperate militarally and thats their business.
We can't stop them.

The best case scenario to maintain Ireland's neutrality in my view following the Lisbon Treaty (if passed) and the militarisation that comes with it would be to veto any mission without UN security council backing simply because worldwide consensus is the nearest we can get to proper neutrality.

your lack of understanding in this matter is breath taking.
Any number of countries in the EU as it stands can go to war if they want to and we have no say.
They can go together or alone.
Passing or not passing Lisbon has no material affect on this other than formalising it for those countries that want something formal on it.



I suppose next you'll be saying that we here in Ireland are complicit in allowing abortion in the UK because we don't veto it?
We can't just like we can't veto any nation state or group of nation states (on their own or co-operating) from going to war on any issue.
Ergo your points are a load of hot air and irrelevant to Ireland full stop.

ixtlan

You know that I am 100% for Lisbon, but I would humbly suggest that you are being too harsh to johnnyq.

He/she understands the situation. He's just concerned that if the EU rather than NATO authorises an operation, then Ireland is involved. I would argue that for 27 countries to agree it's going to be a very clear case for action. In fact let me propose a crazy idea... the perfect scenario would be the abolition of NATO and all military activity to be placed under EU control so that we could veto any action we considered unwise. Never going to happen but an interesting thought.

As for abortion, as you know it's not affected by Lisbon, but I suppose there is a parallel. If in the future the EU brought in laws governing abortion, with appropriate opt-outs for Ireland and other countries, would people be happy for an EU institution to be involved in this matter? Some people would argue that abortion in the UK is their problem but as soon as the EU regulates it it's on our heads, even if we are not covered.

I would disagree on both points. Isolationism is unworkable in the modern world. Let everything be disussed at EU level. If some countries want a military alliance let them, and then allow us to be involved in the discussions and maybe we can influence then. Likewise with abortion. Let countries discuss it and we can offer our opinion, while we maintain whatever policy we want.

ixtlan

ixtlan wrote: »

He/she understands the situation. He's just concerned that if the EU rather than NATO authorises an operation, then Ireland is involved.

How without Dáil approval and a UNSC mandate? How?
Without those,the assertion is groundless.With those,it's immaterial because we'd be acting for the UN.It's impossible not to be neutral and acting for the United Nations.

I would argue that for 27 countries to agree it's going to be a very clear case for action. In fact let me propose a crazy idea... the perfect scenario would be the abolition of NATO and all military activity to be placed under EU control so that we could veto any action we considered unwise. Never going to happen but an interesting thought.

27 countries are unlikely to agree unless there is something heinous happening that needs intervention and one of the 27 isn't responsible.
It's a moot point regardless as the way the EU or old EC is and always has been structured since we joined it in '73-decisions taken within it have involved members of Nato.
Decisions taken within it have had direct implications on their available spend for military.
We've never had a right to decide other countries choices on military though nor any association with them, and I don't expect we ever will.

Scofflaw

I think a large part of the argument here is that we will have a moral involvement with any EU military action, rather than a legal one per se. The idea seems to be that we can say "oh, well we're not involved with the military aspects of the EU" or "the EU has no military aspects, so we have no responsibility for anything done by the member states".

Personally, I see that as a pretty noxious piece of hand-washing. We have influence in the EU, we have influence with the member states. We cannot avoid moral culpability for the actions of our EU partners by erecting a "Chinese wall" of legality that absolves us from their actions.

The only way of avoiding our moral culpability in respect of the military actions of other EU member states, whether through the EU or not, is to leave the EU - and if we did so for such a reason we would simply be evading our responsibility.

I've said this before - we are militarily neutral, but we are not politically neutral. We are not morally neutral either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

Deleted User wrote: »

How without Dáil approval and a UNSC mandate? How?
Without those,the assertion is groundless.With those,it's immaterial because we'd be acting for the UN.It's impossible not to be neutral and acting for the United Nations.

Just to defend my post, even though we are on the same side....

The concern for some people I would suggest, is that the EU would want military intervention somewhere... Without a UN mandate Ireland could not participate with troops. However it would still be voted on by the EU. We could veto any action, but we could also vote yes or abstain, thereby allowing other countries to send troops without UN approval. Under certain circumstances Ireland might approve of the action or perhaps not care enough so that we would be happy to vote yes in return for some concession.

I really am playing devil's advocate here. I think this issue, while based on valid concerns does not justify a no vote, and I agree with what Scofflaw added. Ultimately, we should be ready to discuss military matters with our European neighbours, even if we are always going to say no.

Ix.

johnnyq

Deleted User wrote: »

More Utter Rubbish.
I suppose next you'll be saying that we here in Ireland are complicit in allowing abortion in the UK because we don't veto it?
Ergo... a load of hot air

Look, we can all start our posts with 'utter rubbish' and end them with 'ergo' but it still doesn't justify your blinkered view that no troops = no responsibility.

Abortion?!? I mean come on! This style of yours to draw up obviously incorrect analogies really takes from anything of substance you may have to say.

/pictures Black Briar having dug a hole so deep that he ends up in China :D

But in the interests of furthering the discussion I will trudge on...

blackbriar wrote:

Some Countries within the EU do want to cooperate militarally and thats their business. We can't stop them.
Any number of countries in the EU as it stands can go to war if they want to and we have no say.

'Some' countries in the EU can do what they like and we can't stop them, true. But they can't call it a EU mission/cooperation which would implicate Ireland.

Where Ireland does have a say - and certainly a veto - it must be used to protect Irish neutrality (if that is our military policy.

ixtlan wrote:

You know that I am 100% for Lisbon, but I would humbly suggest that you are being too harsh to johnnyq.

Thank you ixtlan for being a voice of reason! And I am grateful for you holding the fort for the opposing side while I was away :)

ixtlan wrote:

The concern for some people I would suggest, is that the EU would want military intervention somewhere... Without a UN mandate Ireland could not participate with troops. However it would still be voted on by the EU. We could veto any action, but we could also vote yes or abstain, thereby allowing other countries to send troops without UN approval. Under certain circumstances Ireland might approve of the action or perhaps not care enough so that we would be happy to vote yes in return for some concession.

And still call ourselves neutral of course:rolleyes:

Vis-a-vis the lisbon treaty - leaving the mutual defence and 'terrorism' prevention aside for a moment - I am concerned that it allows the government to vote to change voting on these issues from uninimous to majority voting and hence then claim to vote No when they know it's meaningless.
I could envisage it being defended using exactly the same feeble arguments as BlackBriar is using now - 'it doesn't involve us', 'but we're not sending troops':rolleyes:). And yet if an atrocity does occur (and yes I view the widely backed 'terrorism' prevention Iraq war only 5 yrs ago as an example)
Biffo will still say 'but we're neutral':mad:

Regarding the likelihood of this happening - just wait until a former colony of Uk/France becomes involved in something.

A UN backing to any action is the best direction forward to try and prevent this happening since at least there must be international consensus.
Aligning the EU to Nato and its 'mission leftovers' only ensures that those political interests will be defended and likely at the expense of the local people being 'liberated'.

Excellent post Scofflaw highlighting political moral cowardice.

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

Look, we can all start our posts with 'utter rubbish' and end them with 'ergo' but it still doesn't justify your blinkered view that no troops = no responsibility.

Abortion?!? I mean come on! This style of yours to draw up obviously incorrect analogies really takes from anything of substance you may have to say.

/pictures Black Briar having dug a hole so deep that he ends up in China :D.

If dealing with points I make is more difficult than giving an answer with "blah" or a in it then fine.
I am interested though to know how statements like no troops does mean responsibility squares up with every other thing in the EU that is done that we apparently disagree with.
you are very selective in your logic as I said earlier..only using it when it suits you.