Is Lisbon an irreversible step towards an EU-controlled army?

edanto

I don't know.

I'm chatting with a friend about this at the moment and we don't know much about the current decision making process for Irish / EU troops participating in a dispute/war.... and there are conflicting reports on the changes that Lisbon brings.

Can anyone help us by summarising what we have at the moment and what Lisbon changes?

nesf

Moved to correct forum.

Short answer: No, it isn't since it doesn't make any move towards taking competency in deployment of our military, i.e. only the Irish Government can make the decision to deploy Irish troops and it's the same for the other EU countries and this doesn't change with Lisbon.


Long answer: Someone else can do this for you.

Hitman Actual

The statement is quite ridiculous, tbh. A summary of the new defense policy would be that unanimty is still the golden rule, but states can get involved in a type of enhanced cooperation amongst themselves (whomsoever wants to be involved). Some of the main defense details in Lisbon:

The first thing Lisbon does is to change the name of European Security and Defense Policy to Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). And the general aim is "the progressive framing of a common defense policy that might lead to a common defense" (Article 11 TEU). However, the transition to a common defense is still to be decided by unanimty by the European Council (found in Article 17 TEU and Article 280H TFEU). Also, the decision has to be adopted by member states in accordance with their constitutional rules (Article 27(1) TEU).

Also, Declaration 30 states "the provisions governing the Common Security and Defence Policy do not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of the member states. The EU and its member states will remain bound by the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and, in particular, by the primary responsibility of the Security Council and of its members for the maintenance of international peace and security"

Now, there is a common defense clause in Lisbon, where if a member state is the victim of an armed aggression on it's territory, the other member states shall have an "obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power". However, this does not affect the specific security and defense policies of member states or NATO agreements (Article 27(7) TEU), so Irelands neutrality is not affected, and of course the unanimty rule still applies regarding action taken.

There's also a solidarity clause: "The Union and its member states shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a member state is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the member states". Again, where a decision has defense implications, the Council must act unanimously.

Also, "Permanent Structured Cooperation" is introduced, where states that wish to take part provide troops, transport, etc, at a brief notice for a period of four months. The key thing here is that membership of this group is voluntary, but once involved decisions are still taken by unanimity.

Edit to finish: Perhaps the statement isn't as ridiculous as I first said. The treaty does introduce provisions for a much more integrated defense policy. However, unanimity is still the rule, and this cannot be stressed enough (especially given the Irish sensitivity to neutrality).

murphaph

lenny_leonard wrote: »

The first thing Lisbon does is to change the name of European Security and Defense Policy to Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). And the general aim is "the progressive framing of a common defense policy that might lead to a common defense" (Article 11 TEU). However, the transition to a common defense is still to be decided by unanimty by the European Council (found in Article 17 TEU and Article 280H TFEU). Also, the decision has to be adopted by member states in accordance with their constitutional rules (Article 27(1) TEU).

I can already see the multiple-referenda until we vote to join in then. The "constitutional rules" argument is worthless as we were are witnessing with Lisbon/Lisbon II-vote NO and you will be told to vote again and give the 'right' answer (or else). Everyone here is intelligent enough to see where this is leading. I'd equate it to a ratchet, you can advance it but there's no retreat from the process. All the powers that be have to do is make the steps seem small enough and they can keep it moving. This is why I'm voting NO now and will continue to vote NO on any further EU treaties until the whole bloody thing stops for a few years and a EUROPE_WIDE process of consultation with the ordinary citizens takes place. The EU has become a runaway train lads. There are citizens all over Europe who want to know "where is this leading?". What's wrong with an EU wide plebiscite, just to see if the ordinary people want greater integration or not?

Hitman Actual

It genuinely troubles me that we're going to have another referendum. But not half as much as it troubles me that the "No" decision was based in a large part on misinformation and misunderstanding. (And before anyone flames me for singling out No voters here, I include Yes voters in the "ignorant" category too).

murphaph wrote: »

What's wrong with an EU wide plebiscite, just to see if the ordinary people want greater integration or not?

What would the question be, though? How would you interpret the results? And how would you know that everyone was voting from a basis of comprehension of how the EU works, or how they'd want it to work? I mean, just going by the polls in the wake of the Lisbon No vote, would you say that even 20% of Irish people had a clue what they were voting for? An EU-wide plebiscite sounds great, but in practice it would be meaningless, imo.

Scofflaw

edanto wrote: »

I don't know.

I'm chatting with a friend about this at the moment and we don't know much about the current decision making process for Irish / EU troops participating in a dispute/war.... and there are conflicting reports on the changes that Lisbon brings.

Can anyone help us by summarising what we have at the moment and what Lisbon changes?

Current: at the moment we have troops in an EU 'battlegroup', and Irish troops are deployed in Chad as part of EUFOR. This is possible because EUFOR is a deployment ordered by the UN - it's made up of EU member state troops, and the EU is providing the command & coordination for it.

So our current arrangements do not prevent our engagement with the EU in a military sense - however, they do prevent deployment of Irish troops except under the 'triple lock' of government, Dáil, and UN. That applies to our 80 soldiers in the Nordic battlegroup as well as more generally to Irish forces.

Ireland is also involved (since 2004) with the European Defence Agency, whose tasks are:

* Developing defence capabilities.
* Promoting defence research and technology.
* Promoting armaments co-operation.
* Creating a competitive European defence equipment market and strengthening the European defence, technological and industrial base.

Lisbon: wouldn't change any of the arrangements above - we would continue to operate under the triple lock. The EU's capacity for joint military action remains limited by the NATO obligations of its NATO members, and the neutrality of nearly all the rest.

What does change?

1. The Treaty gives the European Defence Agency a slightly more solid legal basis - it is already part of the EU, though, and the operation of the agency under Nice is exactly the same as under Lisbon. The agency's main aim is to deliver value for money in the military field - something that would be entirely uncontentious if it were health, but people seem to prefer not to get value for money when it comes to killing people (or preventing them killing our soldiers). The agency is intergovernmental, and "without prejudice to the competences of Member States in defence matters". Participation is voluntary.

2. Lisbon introduces the extremely sinister-sounding "permanent structured cooperation". Currently, if the EU runs a mission like Chad, it relies on ad hoc cooperation between the member states that choose to participate - "permanent structured cooperation" is a way for interested member states to set up a permanent cooperation system. Participation is voluntary.

3. Lisbon would take the EU one tentative step closer to actually having a common defence policy, but we are precluded from joining in without a further referendum, since we have a constitutional bar on joining any such common defence. A common defence is still several steps away, partly because it seems pointless given that the majority of the EU is already in NATO. The main drive for an EU common defence traditionally came from France, which was formally part of NATO but had withdrawn virtually all cooperation with the organisation.

4. Then we have the upgraded mutual assistance clause in Article 28a(7), the obligation to give aid and assistance if a member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory. This obligation is unclear concerning ‘certain Member States’, i.e. the neutral or non-aligned ones - such as Ireland. The commitment in the clause to respect the policy of such states can be taken to preclude us having to provide military assistance (which in any case the clause makes no mention of), or it could be taken as a load of weaselly words designed to disguise exactly such an obligation - even though disguising such an obligation would render it void anyway.

5. Finally, the Treaty includes the infamous provision that "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities." This is taken by some to mean an open-ended commitment to perpetually increasing military spending, and by others to be an aspirational statement which provides a soft commitment to actually working with the EDA. Open-ended commitment to perpetually increasing military spending isn't even slightly likely as far as I can see - no government has ever committed to such a thing, or realistically can.

Anyway, hope that helps. A very good commentary is here - I have relied on it here to some extent.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

Scofflaw wrote: »

Anyway, hope that helps. A very good commentary is here - I have relied on it here to some extent.

Completely off-topic, but that blog linked by Scofflaw is one of the most informative sources on EU affairs. Well worth following, if you're that way inclined.

murphaph

lenny_leonard wrote: »

It genuinely troubles me that we're going to have another referendum. But not half as much as it troubles me that the "No" decision was based in a large part on misinformation and misunderstanding. (And before anyone flames me for singling out No voters here, I include Yes voters in the "ignorant" category too).

I agree that a large number of voters on both sides had absolutely no idea on what they were voting for/against. However, I believe the powers that be (including our own leadership) are largely reponsible for this-why exactly was a complex treaty of amendment put to the irish electorate in a referendum? It was simply because the EU Constitution never made it here, having been rejected by 2 other nations. Why didn't they persist with the relaitively simple idea of a new constitution for the EU and put it back to the citizens who rejected it? I would have much rather people were able to read and understand a simple EU Constitutional proposal and then vote on that, rather than a difficult to understand treaty of amendment of other treaties. I am cynical of the course of action taken by those in power to steer away from the 'transparent method' in favour of the Lisbon method.

lenny_leonard wrote: »

What would the question be, though? How would you interpret the results? And how would you know that everyone was voting from a basis of comprehension of how the EU works, or how they'd want it to work? I mean, just going by the polls in the wake of the Lisbon No vote, would you say that even 20% of Irish people had a clue what they were voting for? An EU-wide plebiscite sounds great, but in practice it would be meaningless, imo.

I suppose to answer your question I'd repeat what I said above. The EU constitution was a 'clean sweep' which was easily read and understood. They should have persisted with this or taken the answer given by the citizens of France/The Netherlands that they were not in favour of the way the EU 'elite' proposed it moved.

I undertstand that legally binding referenda are actually illegal in some EU states for historical reasons but a plebiscite aimed at 'finding out how people feel' based on the original EU Constitution would have been easy to understand and thus vote upon. If the majority of EU citizens and the citizens of each individual state were in favour of the proposal then I'd accept it as the will of the people. I do not accept that our elected national representatives always have the best interests of the people they represent at heart, so such important decisions should be made at ground zero.

WoollyRedHat

There's also a solidarity clause: "The Union and its member states shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a member state is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the member states". Again, where a decision has defense implications, the Council must act unanimously

.

So this means we can opt out if we so wish in this instance?

Scofflaw

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

There's also a solidarity clause: "The Union and its member states shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a member state is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the member states". Again, where a decision has defense implications, the Council must act unanimously

So this means we can opt out if we so wish in this instance?

As long as we opt out in the spirit of solidarity, yes. There's a good analysis of that in the House of Lords Report:

The Member States are to "coordinate between themselves in the Council". Declaration 37 to the Treaty of Lisbon makes clear that it is for individual Member States to decide on the best way of complying with this solidarity obligation.

Their conclusion is interesting:

6.349. The Solidarity Clause does not seem to us to have any legal significance; it does not enable Member States to do anything which they could not do without it. It does however serve to emphasise the political will of the Member States to stand together in the face of adversity.

So it's up to the member states as to what they do in the light of the clause. Standing around looking supportive is an option.

cordially,
Scofflaw