Blueprint for EU army to be agreed

Vadrefjorde

Hans-Gert Poettering, the European Parliament's President and close ally of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, has supported Safe as a "link" to the "objective of a European army".

"Safe can broaden the debate on the right steps towards closer synchronisation, bringing in those people who cannot yet conceive of a European army," he said in a recent speech.

Would this influence any of the no voters of Lisbon who had been assured by the yes campaign of Irelands neutrality, and who were assured that there wasn't an EU agenda for a "European Army" ??

It would read to me that they are progressing with the plans anyway, just in the background so that the Irish might not get the wrong condition, and to give us a chance to get "the right answer" in the next referendum on Lisbon :pac:

Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/4689736/Blueprint-for-EU-army-to-be-agreed.html

Ironbars

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

Hans-Gert Poettering, the European Parliament's President and close ally of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, has supported Safe as a "link" to the "objective of a European army".

"Safe can broaden the debate on the right steps towards closer synchronisation, bringing in those people who cannot yet conceive of a European army," he said in a recent speech.

Would this influence any of the no voters of Lisbon who had been assured by the yes campaign of Irelands neutrality, and who were assured that there wasn't an EU agenda for a "European Army" ??

It would read to me that they are progressing with the plans anyway, just in the background so that the Irish might not get the wrong condition, and to give us a chance to get "the right answer" in the next referendum on Lisbon :pac:

Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/4689736/Blueprint-for-EU-army-to-be-agreed.html

Your making a lot of assumptions there chief, assumptions with no basis. If I didnt know better I would say you are a Libertas agitator.

View

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

Hans-Gert Poettering, the European Parliament's President and close ally of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, has supported Safe as a "link" to the "objective of a European army".

"Safe can broaden the debate on the right steps towards closer synchronisation, bringing in those people who cannot yet conceive of a European army," he said in a recent speech.

Would this influence any of the no voters of Lisbon who had been assured by the yes campaign of Irelands neutrality, and who were assured that there wasn't an EU agenda for a "European Army" ??

It would read to me that they are progressing with the plans anyway, just in the background so that the Irish might not get the wrong condition, and to give us a chance to get "the right answer" in the next referendum on Lisbon :pac:

Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/4689736/Blueprint-for-EU-army-to-be-agreed.html

It might help if you read ALL the article.

On Tuesday, Caroline Flint, Britain's Europe Minister, insisted: "Let me be clear - there are no plans for a European army."

But then again, let's all pretend that Ireland's military capacity would be absolutely critical for the establishment of a European army. The world really does revolve around us...

Vadrefjorde

rofl

I pasted from the article exactly as it was printed...
No wait, that makes the Daily Telegraph a Libertas agitator propeganda tool :P:P:P:P
Only the last line appertains to my personal opinion, and that is one of mistrust of Europe, mistrust of the agenda of Europe and the direction it is taking. If the article holds any truth then it has only re-affirmed what most people believed , or at the very least what i believe. That there is an agenda within Europe to establish a European army, on a par with the US, as influential as the US and which will draw from the resources of all the member states.
My own personal opinion is that there is no need for Europe to establish such a NATO style force, that there is no need for the EU to become more powerful, at the expense of national government power. And that there is certainly no need for an EU army.
One of the fundamental arguments of the yes/no Lisbon vote campaign is this very subject.
The Lisbon Treaty would further militarise the EU.
It calls for all member states to increase their military spending and obliges them to make facilities available for EU military activity.
Lisbon would extend the grounds on which the EU can participate in military interventions beyond the boarders of the EU.
It strengthens links between the EU and NATO and allows a small group of member states to form a military alliance within the EU and in cooperation with US-dominated NATO.
Lisbon would also allow for the incorporation of Irish forces into EU military structures and planning, which are dominated by states with colonial histories and use military operations for political-economic ends.

Vadrefjorde

View wrote: »

It might help if you read ALL the article.



But then again, let's all pretend that Ireland's military capacity would be absolutely critical for the establishment of a European army. The world really does revolve around us...

I read all the article
The plan, which has influential support in Germany and France, proposes to set up a "Synchronised Armed Forces Europe", or Safe, as a first step towards a true European military force.

The move comes as France, a supporter of an EU army, prepares to rejoin Nato and to take over one of the Alliance's top military posts. General Charles de Gaulle withdrew French forces in 1966.

Geoffrey Van Orden MEP, the Conservative European defence spokesman, warned that British ministers are "in denial".

He said: "They are sleepwalking towards a European army and seem to have little awareness of what is going on."

The EU proposals, drafted by Karl von Wogau, a German MEP, envisage a "dynamic to further development of co-operation between national armed forces so that they become increasingly synchronised - this process [should] be given the name Safe".

There are also plans to create an EU "Council of Defence Ministers" and "a European statute for soldiers within the framework of Safe governing training standards, operational doctrine and freedom of operational action".

Hans-Gert Poettering, the European Parliament's President and close ally of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, has supported Safe as a "link" to the "objective of a European army".

"Safe can broaden the debate on the right steps towards closer synchronisation, bringing in those people who cannot yet conceive of a European army," he said in a recent speech.

President Nicolas Sarkozy's will use a summit marking Nato's 60th birthday celebrations in April to pledge France to the Nato's military command structure.

Mr Van Orden, a former Brigadier-General who served at Nato HQ in the 1990s, is concerned that in the process the Alliance "is going to be skewed to suit the EU".

"A key element of a likely deal is to give France something Britain has never had - one of the top two military posts in Nato," he said.

France is expected to play a key part in shaping Nato's future role by taking the job of Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, or Sact, a post traditionally held by a United States Flag or General officer.

"We are giving a nation, which for nearly 50 years has been committed to marginalising Nato and building European structures to exclude the Americans, the job of re-jigging the transatlantic Alliance," said Mr Van Orden.

On Tuesday, Caroline Flint, Britain's Europe Minister, insisted: "Let me be clear - there are no plans for a European army."

Here is the entire article so that neither of us is accused of taking any snippet out of context, heaven forbid

lmtduffy

you know we're in the Eu yeah?
as in we are directly and voluntarily involved in its workings?

So technically how can we mistrust the Eu, are they going to trick us and if they do are they going to stop us from backing out of it?

And let me put it this way there is to going to be a separate Eu army, the key word synchronisation means that they are developing their armed forces to work together so if push comes to shove they can be prepared and synchronised to work together and so that when they are on Un missions that they can co-ordinate and act more efficiently.

Armies within the Eu and through out the world train together all the time, it does not mean their governments are going to agree to go to war together for political or economic ends.

And that in having there armed forces synchronised it means that they will be more effective at carrying out their missions, most of which are UN missions.

And yes increasing military funding is in the lisbon, are armed forces as anyone involved with them will tell you they could do with more funding.

And in case you haven’t noticed the Eu is a huge stabilising force, even the prospect of member ship can force a country to clean up its act, and I would like it to continue to do so, because I believe other armies such as America, China and Russia should have to consider the Eu and its stance before they do anything rash.

And where do you envisage this Eu army marching to?

Hitman Actual

Using the deeply eurosceptic Telegraph as a reliable source of EU affairs does nothing for your credibilty, Vadrefjorde. The site EUbusiness gives a much more balanced appraisal of the parliament-proposed plan. In particular, one should pay attention to the following:

wrote:

Poettering proposed that SAFE should be developed using the EU system of enhanced cooperation that allowed for the creation of the euro or the Schengen zone, which permits the free movement of people between certain member states.


This would enable "neutral or sceptical member states" to decide to become involved only in "individual aspects" of the plan, he added.


"No-one should be forced to join," he said, with an eye on Irish voters who rejected the EU's Lisbon reform treaty partly because they feared Ireland would be made to give up its policy of neutrality.

Vadrefjorde

I'm well aware we are in the EU.
I'm also well aware that one of the major factors which influenced voter opinion on the last Lisbon treaty referendum was this very subject. You have to accept that the decisions to form this new army are being taken without consulting the electorate of each member state. The only reason we had to hold a referendum on it was because of our constitution, had there been a way around it you wouldn't have had an opportunity to vote on the matter. But i digress. We did vote, and now we're voting a second time in the hope that we "get it right" this time. Be very clear, nothing has changed in the Lisbon document. As you have quite rightly pointed out Lisbon treaty calls for quite a number of things militarily, to which Ireland would be subject to along with the other member states if it gets ratified.
But the question is why do we need to be on a par with NATO and the US?
What do you think would be different or more advantageous ? There is not international necessity for strengthening and consolidating Europe's military into this "European Army".

There is no military threat from Russia and China? Are they going to invade us?
There is already NATO and the UN, there isn't a need to try to emulate the United States.
And where do i envisage this army marching to?? I don't envisage them marching anywhere to be honest, you would have to ask the Germans or French i guess.
I personally don't see a need for this "Synchronised Armed Forces Europe" .

But what i do see is the EU pressing on with the agenda it has, which it had prior to our rejection of the Lisbon treaty. This European Army that only weeks ago the Yes camp were publicly scorning and making fun of. This is just another example of the democracy of Europe, we voted no so they will carry on anyways and somehow our national government will cajole us to vote yes next time. In the meantime the Synchronised Armed Forces Europe is a first step towards a true European military force.

Hitman Actual

There's far too much rhetoric there to reply to all of it, but a quick reply on a couple of points:

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

I'm also well aware that one of the major factors which influenced voter opinion on the last Lisbon treaty referendum was this very subject. You have to accept that the decisions to form this new army are being taken without consulting the electorate of each member state.

Military issues in the EU come under the CFSP, which works on an intergovernmental basis, rather than the supranational basis of the Internal Market. Everything gets decided through unanimity of the member states. This "new army" that you believe is just around the corner can't come about without the agreement of all MS, yet you seem to believe that it will be foisted on us whether we like it or not. Neither the current Treaties nor Lisbon changes this, and I challenge you to find some concrete evidence to the contrary in said texts.

And what exactly do you want to consult the electorate about? For a start, Irish neutrality is guaranteed in both the current framework and in Lisbon, so can't we assume that the wishes of the Irish people are being taken on board by our elected representives?

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

I personally don't see a need for this "Synchronised Armed Forces Europe" .

As per the article I referenced: "The European Union is currently involved in 12 peacekeeping, police or observation missions in Georgia, the Balkans, Palestine, Afghanistan and Africa. It also intends to launch an operation to combat pirates operating off the coast of Somalia. It conducted nine other missions between 2003 and 2007." You don't think these missions can benefit from a better coordinated CFSP? Ireland is involved in several of these missions, remember. Anything that improves the wefare and well-being of our troops is a good thing.

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

But what i do see is the EU pressing on with the agenda it has, which it had prior to our rejection of the Lisbon treaty. This European Army that only weeks ago the Yes camp were publicly scorning and making fun of. This is just another example of the democracy of Europe, we voted no so they will carry on anyways and somehow our national government will cajole us to vote yes next time. In the meantime the Synchronised Armed Forces Europe is a first step towards a true European military force.

Again, I challenge you to find evidence of how this army can come about in the current framework or in Lisbon. Voting No to Lisbon does not halt the impending doom of an EU army, just as voting Yes does nothing to speed it up. There are of course euro-philes out there who believe that the EU should have a common military force, but these people have existed since the early 1950's even before the signing of the Treaty of Rome. Half a century later we're really not any closer to this EU army. Poettering himself referred to the plan as a "the distance objective of a European army", but even if it's something that he personally would like to see, such an objective is still within the control of the member states, and will remain so with Lisbon.

Edit to add: When you say "the EU pressing on with the agenda it has, which it had prior to our rejection of the Lisbon treaty", do you believe that just because we voted No, the EU should stop any plans for an improved CFSP when it's within their rights in the current framework?

Vadrefjorde

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Edit to add: When you say "the EU pressing on with the agenda it has, which it had prior to our rejection of the Lisbon treaty", do you believe that just because we voted No, the EU should stop any plans for an improved CFSP when it's within their rights in the current framework?

No i think there is no need for a build up of armed forces into one power within Europe, the peacekeeping missions you cited are UN missions, are you saying that the wellbeing of Irish troops would be enhanced in some way if it was an EU army?

Your assertion of Irish neutrality guaranteed now means that the original Lisbon treaty has now been amended? Maybe you could indicate what amendment has been made to the original document that we voted on?

ChocolateSauce

Let's just for the sake of argument say that there will be an EU army someday...

Why is this a bad thing? Conscription? Eh...during the First World War, in which 20 million died and many, many millions more fought, and when we were legally at war with Germany, we were not conscripted.

Why would anyone think we'd be conscripted now?

Hitman Actual

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

No i think there is no need for a build up of armed forces into one power within Europe, the peacekeeping missions you cited are UN missions, are you saying that the wellbeing of Irish troops would be enhanced in some way if it was an EU army?

I've no idea, and I'm not too bothered one way or the other if this currently mythical EU army does come into existence. The point is, Poettering is simply talking about a plan to improve the CFSP, which surely does aid our troops when we are part of an EU peace-keeping force. Poettering's plan doesn't create a european army, and as I already said there is nothing in the current framework or in Lisbon that allows for an EU army to be created without full unanimous cooperation of all member states. Or if there is something in Poettering's plan to create this army, please show us the evidence.

[Edit to add: Lisbon doesn't actually contain the provisions to create an EU army, but there are provisions for an enhanced-cooperation type of force, which I suppose, if all member states were a part of, would be a de facto EU army].

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

Your assertion of Irish neutrality guaranteed now means that the original Lisbon treaty has now been amended? Maybe you could indicate what amendment has been made to the original document that we voted on?

Don't be silly, of course the Lisbon Treaty hasn't been amended, nor will it ever be without re-negotiation and re-ratification by all member states. That doesn't mean that our neutrality isn't protected under Nice, and will remain to be under Lisbon. Just because the EU are prepared to give us a silly and pointless further assurance of our neutral status, doesn't mean we need it. You seem to believe that because we're getting that assurance, we're not already protected. You're wrong.

And seeing as you avoided the challenge I proposed twice in my previous post, for the third time I ask you: what in the current framework or in Lisbon allows the creation of this EU army that you're convinced is just around the corner? Or will you continue to avoid the question?

Vadrefjorde

Lisbon carefully creates the structures for armed intervention abroad. It demands increased military spending, and organises an EU armaments industry under the newly formed European Defence Agency. It also allows groups of the more powerful military powers within the Union to form military alliances among themselves which may then be authorised to act abroad on behalf of the EU. This would be an official EU operation and no matter what, Lisbon obliges all Member States to support it.

Once again (I have two threads i started in 2 days) i'll have to point out that the reason for starting a thread was not to query my personal views and then dissasemble the thread and distract it into a debate on my own beliefs .
Sure the tactic works a lot of times but not always.

turgon

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

It also allows groups of the more powerful military powers within the Union to form military alliances among themselves which may then be authorised to act abroad on behalf of the EU. it

Erm, not exactly, hold your horses my euroskeptic compadre. The Treaty allows any member within to form alliances, why did you put in that "more powerful military powers" **** in there? The minimum is seven btw, maybe that could be cleared up by ... em ... Scofflaw???

It may then be authorized to act broadly on behalf of the EU. First of all this, I imagine, would require a unanimous approval. But importantly, at the moment a number of Eu States are in Chad on behalf of the EU. Are you saying the EU should only be truly counted as on the ground if the armies from each state are there?

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

Once again (I have two threads i started in 2 days)

Yes, and Im already sick of you trouncing your Euroskeptic bull**** taken directly out of the bible of Kathy Sinnot and Declan Gannly, both proud Irish nationalists apparently, defending their ideals. Oh wait ... oh ... theyre not actually Irish. Oops for them it seems.

Scofflaw

Mm. I don't mean to rain on the lovely parade, but this is one rather aspirational recommendation in a parliamentary report. For Bruno Waterfield to describe it as an agreed blueprint for an EU army is nonsense - in recognition of which, he devotes virtually none of the article to it. Eurosceptic scaremongering, I'm afraid.

The Treaty allows any member within to form alliances, why did you put in that "more powerful military powers" **** in there? The minimum is seven btw, maybe that could be cleared up by ... em ... Scofflaw???

Eight under Nice, nine under Lisbon, assuming you mean enhanced cooperation (of course, the real minimum number of member states needed to form a cooperative group is two, via a bilateral treaty outside the EU). To be honest, though, I can't see any reason why member states would subject military arrangements to the various democratic and group controls involved in forming an EU enhanced cooperation group - they tend, instead, to prefer arrangements subject to no democratic oversight, like NATO.

Oh, and of course the European Defence Agency doesn't stem from Lisbon - otherwise, of course, it couldn't yet exist, which it does, and has for several years. Lisbon would only give the EDA a treaty foundation, which would make it amenable to things like the Charter (slightly weird idea, but there we go). The rationale behind the EDA is partly to reduce military costs in Europe (particularly true here, where we don't exactly get economies of scale for the Defence Forces), and partly to make it very difficult for the member state armies to fight each other.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

Lisbon carefully creates the structures for armed intervention abroad.

About 80% of the CSDP articles in Lisbon draw from articles in the existing treaties, so a lot is already there. The main new provisions deal with the role of the high rep, the treaty basis of the EDA, and permanent structured cooperation. Relatively significant changes, I agree, but hardly a careful creation of structures for armed intervention abroad.

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

It demands increased military spending, and organises an EU armaments industry under the newly formed European Defence Agency.

As Scofflaw said, the EDA is not new; it was first associated with the SEA in the late 80's, but not officially formed until 2004. Also, the EDA does not directly translate to the formation of an EU army, in the sense that all member states must participate, which I assume is what you mean:

Article 45(2) Lisbon Consolidated wrote:

The European Defence Agency shall be open to all Member States wishing to be part of it...

So, involvement in the EDA is optional.

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

It also allows groups of the more powerful military powers within the Union to form military alliances among themselves...

If you're talking about Permanent Structured Cooperation here, all member states may join. But again this doesn't lead to the creation of an EU army, as it's entirely optional:

Article 46(1) Lisbon Consolidated wrote:

Those Member States which wish to participate in the permanent structured cooperation...

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

...which may then be authorised to act abroad on behalf of the EU.

What article are you drawing on here? Not that it matters though- as Permanent Structured Cooperation does not create an EU army, as noted above.

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

This would be an official EU operation and no matter what, Lisbon obliges all Member States to support it.

Again, what article are you drawing on here, or better still, show the article trail for your thought process in your whole argument. The CCCTB thread a while back had problems with text been pulled from any angle of the Treaty to fit the argument.

Regardless, you haven't offered anything to show that Lisbon introduces an EU army.

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

Once again (I have two threads i started in 2 days) i'll have to point out that the reason for starting a thread was not to query my personal views and then dissasemble the thread and distract it into a debate on my own beliefs

If your 'personal views' offer what others believe to be misleading information on the Treaty/EU, then your views need to be challenged. In this case, you've taken an article by a grossly eurosceptic reporter in a grossly eurosceptic "newspaper" and tried to tell us that an EU army is on the way. You still haven't offered anything of substance to the claim though.

Hitman Actual

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

No i think there is no need for a build up of armed forces into one power within Europe, the peacekeeping missions you cited are UN missions..

Just realised I missed something here- Ireland is involved in EU peace-keeping missions through EUFOR. The missions may be mandated by the UN, but nevertheless they are still carried out in the guise of the EU via the European Security and Defence Policy.

PHB

France and Germany are two countries. They can do whatever the hell they want in relation to their armed forces, just like we can do whatever the hell we want. That's the point.

Run_to_da_hills

I came across this EU Military badge, Ireland is omitted, possibly for a reason.

Scofflaw

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I came across this EU Military badge, Ireland is omitted, possibly for a reason.

That's not an EU military badge, it's a Eurocorps badge. Eurocorps is a joint military initiative by Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg and Poland, with additional troops and staff from the UK, Finland, Turkey, Austria, Greece, Italy and Holland. It's not an EU institution (hence Turkey).

cordially,
Scofflaw