Concern over military aspects in the Lisbon treaty

Zuiderzee

In researching the military aspects of the Lisbon treaty I have become increasingly alarmed at the potential for abuse of the system proposed by the treaty.

There is specific provision for a military industrial complex written into the treaty with little political control.

I did not fully realize the extent of the Treaties Security and Defense provisions.

Whatever we are told the wording I have used in this article comes directly from the text of the reform treaty. If I can interpret the provisions this way, then so can someone else.

Ireland, Sweden, Austria and Finland – traditionally neutral countries shall be in a new military alliance, which will entail more than just defense.

The Provisions for the Common Security and Defense policy ensures ‘Member states shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the union for the implementation of the common security and defense policy, to contribute to objectives defined by the council’.
That is a military alliance, controlled by an unelected council.

Another provision is that “Member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities” and that the European Defense Agency shall ‘support defense technology research’ This means increased defense spending. I’d rather see the money spent on schools and hospitals.

The European Defense Agency shall ‘implement any useful measure for strengthening the industrial and technological base of the defense sector’ that is the specific creation of a military industrial complex.

This is the very thing that President Dwight D Eisenhower, in January 1961, warns us about.
To paraphrase Eisenhower, this convergence of a political establishment and a large arms industry is new in the European experience.
We must seriously consider the possible economic, political, and social consequences.

Government must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.

The potential for the rise of misplaced power exists and will always persist.
We have seen it many times in only the past 90 years - in the span of a single human life.

We must never let this endanger our democratic decisions which have already been denied three times.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can ensure liberty and democracy.

So – what will we do with this incredibly powerful military capability?
A common defense policy might sound OK, but Section 1 also makes provision for use of the use of the military outside of the EU ‘in accordance with the principles of the United Nations charter’
– it says nothing about actually going to the UN – so who makes the decision as to how the UN charter is interpreted? As an example we have seen Mr.Bush and Mr. Blair go to war regardless of public and international opposition

Decisions relating to the policy, including those initiating a military mission, will rest with the unelected Council and its unelected President.

Basically, if the Council should decide to intervene in a conflict outside of the borders of the EU – then they may do so - without the need to consult the people or the elected parliament.

Unlike in the US where the people choose, the European President shall not hold a national office and will be selected by a 27 person Council of Ministers.

This Council of Ministers shall not be directly elected by the people.

This is an enormous amount of power and influence to be vested in such a small number of people.

History shows us time and time again that such a convergence of military, economic and political power is very, very dangerous. This is how every single totalitarian state has come into being.

I am not into conspiracies, I believe in the inherent goodness of the majority of people, but who will the next president be - or the one after that? The German people would never have elected Adolph Hitler had they known what he would do.

This treaty once in place will establish a system that has the potential to be abused.

Every time we give too much power to a few unaccountable people, it has been disasterous.

The person tipped to be the first EU President in this way is Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister – who took Britain to war in Iraq in 2003. This was done despite the opposition of the British public, the resignation of his foreign secretary, international opposition, and without a clear UN resolution

The addage of Tacitus still holds true - that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutley.

Thanks for reading.
Even if you don’t agree with me – I hope you give some thoughts to the points made

citizensimon.blogspot.com

O'Morris

But we need to improve and invest in our military capabilities in order to make a 27 member EU function more effectively and efficiently. That's what the Lisbon treaty is all about. Isn't it? Reform of the EU to make a 27 member union function more efficiently?

Johnmb

Same old anti treaty BS. If you have a problem with the treaty and would like to convince people to vote no, why not bring up something real that is in the treaty and you don't like? The Lisbon treaty will not militarise the EU any more than it currently is. Those countries that don't want to take part won't, and those that do want to take part will. That will happen with or without the treaty. As for some of your more specific points:
Who do you think this "unelected council" are who will have the control?
How can you claim, with presumably a straight face, that there would be little political control, while acknowledging that the council will in fact have complete control?
Nothing in the treaty will force any government to spend more on military defence.
If using the military is to be done in accordance with the UN Charter, then they have to go to the UN, there is no room for interpretation on that. Bush/Blair acted outside the UN Charter. That would seem to me to be a safeguard to ensure the EU could not ignore the UN in such a way by specifically stating they much adhere to the UN Charter.
Once again, who do you think this council is? They are in fact elected by the people, or at least in accordance with the national election process of their country, how do you think they became ministers?
The treaty will in fact provide more balance to Europe by allowing the European Parliament to have equal powers with the council in many more things than it currently has.
I'm sure there are plenty of things wrong with Lisbon, there's no need to be making things up. And trying to link it to Hitler is just sad, really.:rolleyes:

Zuiderzee

John, before I started looking at the actual text in the treaty I felt like you.

I thought it was bumf and scare tactics, and in Irelands case a non issues.

But look at the text.

Member states shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the union
That is military unity.
The treaty allows for the deployment of troops outside of Europe.

Control of the military will rest with the foreign affairs council of ministers, steered by a president, who has been selected by them - thats 28 people.

I know we might think another Hitler is stretching, but who would have thought 15 years ago that the US would have torture carried out systematicaly, secret prisons, people detained for years with no trial and no contact with the outside world.

We cant se into the future, we can only learn from the past.

Jean Marie Le Pen for example came 2nd in a recent French presidential election.
Jorg Hadler came to power in Austria, and an ultra Catholic party is gaining ground in Poland. In the UK the BNP stand to make ground in the North East.

Its really something I have growing concerns about.

Blair bought the UK into a war in Iraq - despite international opposition, massive public protests and no go-ahead from the UN.
Sice he's left office, he has founded a faith foundation, become a catholic and started making suggestions on the running of the catholic church in public to the pope.

We have a conviening of political, military and economic power to one person, who has a bit of a god thing going on.

I'm not suggesting he will be an extremest either, but who succeeds him?

Zuiderzee

Johnmb wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty will not militarise the EU any more than it currently is.....Nothing in the treaty will force any government to spend more on military defence.

From the Provisions for the Common Security and Defense policy
Member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities Seriously, read the text of the treaty. There is no opt out in the text. There is also provision for defence research and development

Johnmb wrote: »

Who do you think this "unelected council" are who will have the control...while acknowledging that the council will in fact have complete control?

The council is a very small body of people, too small for me to be comfortable with. This especially with the new voting system

Johnmb wrote: »

If using the military is to be done in accordance with the UN Charter, then they have to go to the UN, there is no room for interpretation on that.

the treaty says ‘in accordance with the principles of the United Nations charter’ – it says nothing about actually going to the UN.
It is the councils interperatation of the principles, I mean, we already have a different take on that.
Why cant the treaty say something simple like ' No UN resolution or mandate - then no military action'
As it stands, it is open to interpretation

They are in fact elected by the people, or at least in accordance with the national election process of their country, how do you think they became ministers?

In our system TDs are made ministers by the Taoseach, not the people. other countries may appoint ministers who have not been elected - as they do in the US.

Johnmb wrote: »

The treaty will in fact provide more balance to Europe by allowing the European Parliament to have equal powers with the council in many more things than it currently has.

I'll check it out - but thats not how I understand it right now.

Johnmb wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of things wrong with Lisbon, there's no need to be making things up. And trying to link it to Hitler is just sad, really.:rolleyes:

No, it has hapened several times when a person who gets elected then moves on to a totalitarian system
Venezuela at the moment is not too far away from it.

We cant just wander into a treaty like this and not be totaly sure that there are more checks and balances.

Hitman Actual

@Zuiderzee: Will you also include the Articles in the Treaty relevant to your comments to make it easier for the rest of us to follow and reply? Preferably the consolidated version. Thanks. It's easier than just going and reading the whole of the foreign policy/CSDP chapter to try and follow your post.

sink

Zuiderzee wrote: »

In researching the military aspects of the Lisbon treaty I have become increasingly alarmed at the potential for abuse of the system proposed by the treaty.

There is specific provision for a military industrial complex written into the treaty with little political control.

I did not fully realize the extent of the Treaties Security and Defense provisions.

Whatever we are told the wording I have used in this article comes directly from the text of the reform treaty. If I can interpret the provisions this way, then so can someone else.

Not anyone with a full grasp of the English language and certainly not anyone with any knowledge of legal speak.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Ireland, Sweden, Austria and Finland – traditionally neutral countries shall be in a new military alliance, which will entail more than just defense.

The Provisions for the Common Security and Defense policy ensures ‘Member states shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the union for the implementation of the common security and defense policy, to contribute to objectives defined by the council’.
That is a military alliance, controlled by an unelected council.

That is a selective quote which you have taken out of context and made your own conjecture without regard for what's written in the rest of the treaty, and you are completely false. That is quote is taken from Section 2, Article 42, Paragraph 3 of the 'Treaty on the European Union'. Paragraph 1 of the same Article states.

"The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter."

These capabilities are intended for use as part of UN peacekeeping and relief efforts, hardly the aspiration of a neo-colonial military empire.

Paragraph 4 goes on to say

"Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State."

So the Commission has no executive role and all the decisions have to be made unanimously by the Council which means we have a veto over anything related to the common security and defence policy. Also worth pointing out at this stage as I don't dare assume that you already know, the Council consist of the elected governments of all 27 member states.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Another provision is that “Member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities” and that the European Defense Agency shall ‘support defense technology research’ This means increased defense spending. I’d rather see the money spent on schools and hospitals.

The European Defense Agency shall ‘implement any useful measure for strengthening the industrial and technological base of the defense sector’ that is the specific creation of a military industrial complex.

This is the very thing that President Dwight D Eisenhower, in January 1961, warns us about.
To paraphrase Eisenhower, this convergence of a political establishment and a large arms industry is new in the European experience.
We must seriously consider the possible economic, political, and social consequences.

Government must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.

The potential for the rise of misplaced power exists and will always persist.
We have seen it many times in only the past 90 years - in the span of a single human life.

Again you are making conjecture, increasing military capabilities does not necessarily entail increased military spending. The Irish Defence Forces already has a budget to procure new equipment and to train new soldiers. Lisbon does not require additional funding for the Defence forces.

The purpose of the EDA is to lower the cost of R&D as well as manufacturing through economies of scale. What's the point in Britain, France and Germany all funding separate R&D of the same technology when they are going to be used together in combined forces anyway. They might as well pool their resources and save time and money, taxpayers money.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

We must never let this endanger our democratic decisions which have already been denied three times.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can ensure liberty and democracy.

So – what will we do with this incredibly powerful military capability?
A common defense policy might sound OK, but Section 1 also makes provision for use of the use of the military outside of the EU ‘in accordance with the principles of the United Nations charter’
– it says nothing about actually going to the UN – so who makes the decision as to how the UN charter is interpreted? As an example we have seen Mr.Bush and Mr. Blair go to war regardless of public and international opposition.

Decisions are unanimous. Only our government can decide to send our Defence Forces oversees and they are restricted by the 'triple lock'.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Decisions relating to the policy, including those initiating a military mission, will rest with the unelected Council and its unelected President.

Here you display a shocking fundamental lack of knowledge of the structure and the function of the EU's institutions, especially for someone who claims to be an informed conscientious citizen. THE COUNCIL CONSISTS OF THE ELECTED GOVERNMENTS OF EACH MEMBER STATE, I.E. IN IRELAND'S CASE THE FIANNA FAIL/GREEN PARTY COALITION. I'm sorry for shouting but the amount of people who confuse the Council and the Commission is ridiculous and is an automatic fail for anyone trying to debate European politics.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Basically, if the Council should decide to intervene in a conflict outside of the borders of the EU – then they may do so - without the need to consult the people or the elected parliament.

Momentarily ignoring that the Council is in fact elected. The European Parliament has no mandate over foreign policy, this is due to foreign policy being under the exclusive control of national governments. For the European parliament to have a role we would have to abandon exclusive control of our foreign policy including the Defence forces.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Unlike in the US where the people choose, the European President shall not hold a national office and will be selected by a 27 person Council of Ministers.

Also unlike the 'President of the United States' the 'President of the European Council' has no executive power which means the President can't make any significant decisions and is completely beholden to the European Council on which our elected Toaiseach sits along with all the other elected heads of state.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

This Council of Ministers shall not be directly elected by the people.

Yes they are in what is called a general election. We have one every 4-5 years, the last one took place in 2007. The fact that you don't know this is truly shocking.

Johnmb

Zuiderzee wrote: »

...

I was going to reply, but I think enough people have done that and pointed out your errors already. Most of what you have to say has nothing whatsoever to do with the Lisbon Treaty. The bits that do have anything to do with the treaty mostly show that you either don't understand it or have decided to deliberately twist what it actually says. It also shows that you have a low opinion of other posters when you claim that the council is unelected while you clearly know that it is a council of ministers, i.e. a council made up of the duly elected representatives of the people of Europe.

thecornerboy

sink wrote: »

"The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.

Totally and utterly subjective. I'm certain George Bush (and the future figurehead of Europe, the odious Blair and the so called "Allies) would argue he was complying with the same provisions if it were an issue. Going further and taking a completely ridiculous example I'm sure Hitler would have argued he was acting in the interests of world peace when he invaded Poland. Poland were, after all, shelling Germany weren't they?

The provisions for "defence" in the Treaty are terrifying. If Germany, Britain and France want to integrate their defence planning they're welcome to do so under NATO. Leave the EU out of it.

No To Lisbon.

Scofflaw

thecornerboy wrote: »

[/LEFT]

Totally and utterly subjective. I'm certain George Bush (and the future figurehead of Europe, the odious Blair and the so called "Allies) would argue he was complying with the same provisions if it were an issue. Going further and taking a completely ridiculous example I'm sure Hitler would have argued he was acting in the interests of world peace when he invaded Poland. Poland were, after all, shelling Germany weren't they?

The provisions for "defence" in the Treaty are terrifying. If Germany, Britain and France want to integrate their defence planning they're welcome to do so under NATO. Leave the EU out of it.

They already have done, and the EU is out of it. That's what all the stuff about the EU having to respect member states' NATO involvement is - a turf demarcation that says the EU isn't trying to take NATO's place.

regards,
Scofflaw

thecornerboy

Scofflaw wrote: »

They already have done, and the EU is out of it. That's what all the stuff about the EU having to respect member states' NATO involvement is - a turf demarcation that says the EU isn't trying to take NATO's place.

Completely irrelevant. Waffle imo.

The EDA is superfluous then I take it in your opinion? You don't agree with it being part of the treaty?

ei.sdraob

thecornerboy wrote: »

Completely irrelevant. Waffle imo.

The EDA is superfluous then I take it in your opinion? You don't agree with it being part of the treaty?

we've been thru this already:


1. We are already in EDA

2. We can pullout at any time whether there is a YES or a NO

3. Ireland is spending 700,000 over 3 years for research on bulletproof technology to protect the lives of our soldiers


you'd rather our peacekeeprs go out in the field to do the job we send them to do without proper equipment?

/

Johnmb

thecornerboy wrote: »

[/LEFT]

Totally and utterly subjective. I'm certain George Bush (and the future figurehead of Europe, the odious Blair and the so called "Allies) would argue he was complying with the same provisions if it were an issue. Going further and taking a completely ridiculous example I'm sure Hitler would have argued he was acting in the interests of world peace when he invaded Poland. Poland were, after all, shelling Germany weren't they?

The provisions for "defence" in the Treaty are terrifying. If Germany, Britain and France want to integrate their defence planning they're welcome to do so under NATO. Leave the EU out of it.

No To Lisbon.

Nothing in Lisbon will impact on Ireland in this respect. Article 28 makes clear that only Dail Eireann can decide whether or not Ireland enters a war, and voting yes to Lisbon won't change anything about Article 28. As for using Irish troops for other reasons, such as peace keeping, once again that is a matter for Dail Eireann now, and will remain so regardless as to the outcome of the referendum. So bringing up anything to do with defence, neutrality etc in relation to this referendum is simply trying to muddy the waters of what the treaty is actually about. Why would anyone want to do that, unless they had no real arguments against the treaty, in which case why push for a no vote?

Scofflaw

thecornerboy wrote: »

Completely irrelevant. Waffle imo.

Well, if you can't refute it, I guess you might as well say that. You should read the relevant clauses, though - the EU steers clear of competing with NATO because 23 out of the 27 are in NATO, and don't seem to have any intention of coming out of it. Hence the stuff about anything the EU does having to respect the member states' NATO obligations.

Between having to take into account the fact that most of the member states have their 'mutual defence' sewn up in NATO, and the rest of us are neutral, there really isn't much left for the EU to do, militarily - except what amounts to armed police work in dangerous places, which, funnily enough, is what's in the Treaty.

thecornerboy wrote: »

The EDA is superfluous then I take it in your opinion? You don't agree with it being part of the treaty?

It already exists, whether as part of the Treaty or not, and we're already part of it - I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me why it's significant that it's in Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Húrin

ARTICLE 28D wrote:

(d) support defence technology research, and coordinate and plan joint research activities
and the study of technical solutions meeting future operational needs;
(e) contribute to identifying and, if necessary, implementing any useful measure for
strengthening the industrial and technological base of the defence sector and for
improving the effectiveness of military expenditure.

It is nothing more than a concession to a few large armaments companies.

ARTICLE 25A section 49 c wrote:

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The
Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and
armaments (hereinafter referred to as "the European Defence Agency") shall identify
operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall
contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to
strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate
in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council
in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

It's not good enough for me to get a guarantee of Ireland staying out of increases in army spending. I don't want any European state to further miltarise. And I would be pretty sure that most Europeans would be with me there.

Scofflaw

Húrin wrote: »

It is nothing more than a concession to a few large armaments companies.


It's not good enough for me to get a guarantee of Ireland staying out of increases in army spending. I don't want any European state to further miltarise. And I would be pretty sure that most Europeans would be with me there.

It amazes me that anyone thinks the EU can "further militarise" some of the world's leading military powers by adding a couple of peace-keeping tasks and a joint procurement & research agency.

Plus, the guarantees don't state that Ireland specifically doesn't have to increase military spending - it states that no member state does. Any member state that increases their military budget after Lisbon is doing so entirely off their own bat.

cordially,
Scofflaw

3greenrizla's

...this is one of my last stumbling blocks on the treaty, and thanks to those involved in this somewhat reasoned debate....

Could someone please explain to me the "fighting terrorism" part of the treaty?

If lisbon is passed will Ireland be obliged to support Northern Ireland/the UK/Spain in their fight against terrorism? and to what extent? would sending in a couple of nurses and a negotiator be enough support? or could we see Irish troupes up in Belfast "peace keeping" if god forbid the troubles did ever start again?

Scofflaw

3greenrizla's wrote: »

...this is one of my last stumbling blocks on the treaty, and thanks to those involved in this somewhat reasoned debate....

Could someone please explain to me the "fighting terrorism" part of the treaty?

If lisbon is passed will Ireland be obliged to support Northern Ireland/the UK/Spain in their fight against terrorism? and to what extent? would sending in a couple of nurses and a negotiator be enough support? or could we see Irish troupes up in Belfast "peace keeping" if god forbid the troubles did ever start again?

I take it this refers to the clause on mutual assistance in the case of terrorist attack or natural disaster - technically, all we have to do is say "sorry for your troubles", as per the guarantees:

The Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. It will be for Member States - including Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality - to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory.

However, I suspect a few nurses and a negotiator would be a little more productive of goodwill. We won't send the Army, certainly, because that would prejudice our neutrality - and in any case we'd need UN sanction. Most likely we'd send nurses and gardai.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Húrin

Scofflaw wrote: »

It amazes me that anyone thinks the EU can "further militarise" some of the world's leading military powers by adding a couple of peace-keeping tasks and a joint procurement & research agency.

Plus, the guarantees don't state that Ireland specifically doesn't have to increase military spending - it states that no member state does. Any member state that increases their military budget after Lisbon is doing so entirely off their own bat.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Aiding the armaments industry to become more effective, efficienct or competitive is morally undesirable:

ARTICLE 28 D wrote:

contribute to identifying and, if necessary, implementing any useful measure for
strengthening the industrial and technological base of the defence sector and for
improving the effectiveness of military expenditure.

similarly,

ARTICLE 25b, sect. 49 (c) wrote:

the present paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be replaced by the following paragraphs 3
to 7:
"3. Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as "the European Defence Agency") shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to
strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

Improvement in military capabilities is traditionally done by increasing military spending. Just because it doesn't literally say "increase your spending lads!" doesn't mean that it's not there.

Again. I'm not afraid of being drafted into an EU army to fight some imperialist war. That is one lie of many featured in the No campaign that lacks basis in the treaty.

It is this legally enshrined support and endorsement of the European military-industrial complex that I object to.

I am broadly in favour of the other aspects of the treaty.

Scofflaw

Húrin wrote: »

Aiding the armaments industry to become more effective, efficienct or competitive is morally undesirable:

similarly,

Improvement in military capabilities is traditionally done by increasing military spending. Just because it doesn't literally say "increase your spending lads!" doesn't mean that it's not there.

There's no requirement to do so, and the guarantees are an endorsement of that.

Is it acceptable to you to improve military capabilities while reducing spending?

Húrin wrote: »

Again. I'm not afraid of being drafted into an EU army to fight some imperialist war. That is one lie of many featured in the No campaign that lacks basis in the treaty.

It is this legally enshrined support and endorsement of the European military-industrial complex that I object to.

I am broadly in favour of the other aspects of the treaty.

I didn't get an answer out of another poster as to why putting the EDA in the Treaty was so significant or objectionable, so I hope you don't mind my asking you?

My own view is that by bringing the EDA under the treaties, the EU makes any extension of its remit subject to an Irish referendum. Currently, its remit is decided by European Council decision, where we as citizens have no vote - but elements of the Treaty having defence implications can only be amended by the traditional amendment procedure rather than the simplified procedure, so it would have to go to a vote here (albeit as part of a larger amending treaty) - which I can't help but think of as a good thing.

After all, the EDA already exists, and we are already members (in a limited way that's relevant to our particular interests in force protection).

cordially,
Scofflaw

3greenrizla's

Scofflaw wrote: »

I take it this refers to the clause on mutual assistance in the case of terrorist attack or natural disaster - technically, all we have to do is say "sorry for your troubles", as per the guarantees:



However, I suspect a few nurses and a negotiator would be a little more productive of goodwill. We won't send the Army, certainly, because that would prejudice our neutrality - and in any case we'd need UN sanction. Most likely we'd send nurses and gardai.

Thanks for your reply, would anyone from the No side care to comment?

Just so I am sure I would like to clarify, we are not obliged to send any Irish person or give €1 to assist our European counterpart's fight terrorism?

Scofflaw

3greenrizla's wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, would anyone from the No side care to comment?

Just so I am sure I would like to clarify, we are not obliged to send any Irish person or give €1 to assist our European counterpart's fight terrorism?

Not legally, no - and it's not about "fighting terrorism", it's in the event of "a terrorist attack". We offered assistance to the US after 9/11, after all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

3greenrizla's

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not legally, no - and it's not about "fighting terrorism", it's in the event of "a terrorist attack". We offered assistance to the US after 9/11, after all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thanks again,


still waiting the No sides argument.......
(i'll check back in the morning)

moogester

Bedtime for me but here's an article about the blueprint for a European Army.

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

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.

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."

marco_polo

moogester wrote: »

Bedtime for me but here's an article about the blueprint for a European Army.

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

Euroskeptic British paper in Demonising the EU shocker!

There is no European army, and since I cannot prove a negative, unless you can come back with an article in the treaty stating that an European Army will be created/exists and prove me wrong your argument is worthless.

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

Euroskeptic British paper in Demonising the EU shocker!

There is no European army, and since I cannot prove a negative, unless you can come back with an article in the treaty stating that an European Army will be created/exists and prove me wrong your argument is worthless.

Fortunately, you don't need to prove a negative:

Irish Guarantees wrote:

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

moogester

Scofflaw wrote: »

Fortunately, you don't need to prove a negative:
cordially,
Scofflaw

Is that one of the guarantees that may or may not happen if/when the treaty is ratified?

The text of the Irish assurances includes a sentence stating it does not change the Lisbon Treaty.

Scofflaw

moogester wrote: »

Is that one of the guarantees that may or may not happen if/when the treaty is ratified?

The text of the Irish assurances includes a sentence stating it does not change the Lisbon Treaty.

That's right - it's one of those legally binding international agreements that's legally bound to be inserted into the treaties as Protocols.

Possibly 27 countries are simply trying to trick you, of course.

amused,
Scofflaw

moogester

Scofflaw wrote: »

Possibly 27 countries are simply trying to trick you, of course.

amused,
Scofflaw

Not me lol, i dont get a vote :rolleyes:

Húrin

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's no requirement to do so, and the guarantees are an endorsement of that.

Is it acceptable to you to improve military capabilities while reducing spending?

I didn't get an answer out of another poster as to why putting the EDA in the Treaty was so significant or objectionable, so I hope you don't mind my asking you?

I don't see how it is possible to improve capabilites while actually reducing spending. Is it acceptable? As I said:
Aiding the armaments industry to become more effective, efficient or competitive is morally undesirable. This is because many of these weapons end up in the hands of looney third world governments, terrorists, etc. In this day and age the EU needs to be restricting, capping and regulating the arms trade, not building it up.

My own view is that by bringing the EDA under the treaties, the EU makes any extension of its remit subject to an Irish referendum.

Good point.

thecornerboy

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, if you can't refute it, I guess you might as well say that. You should read the relevant clauses, though - the EU steers clear of competing with NATO because 23 out of the 27 are in NATO, and don't seem to have any intention of coming out of it. Hence the stuff about anything the EU does having to respect the member states' NATO obligations.

Irrelevant and waffle.

Between having to take into account the fact that most of the member states have their 'mutual defence' sewn up in NATO, and the rest of us are neutral, there really isn't much left for the EU to do, militarily - except what amounts to armed police work in dangerous places, which, funnily enough, is what's in the Treaty.

It's wide open to interpretation and I think that's the point of the language. Any type of armed action is covered by this Treaty. There is also mention of ending "terrorism". Again, even Hitler could have argued he was fighting terrorism in Czechslovakia during WWII.

It already exists, whether as part of the Treaty or not, and we're already part of it - I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me why it's significant that it's in Lisbon.

That's exactly it though isn't it? Why is it in Lisbon?

And my question was, clearly, do you think all mention of the EDA is superfluous in the Lisbon Treaty?

Scofflaw

thecornerboy wrote: »

Irrelevant and waffle.

It's wide open to interpretation and I think that's the point of the language. Any type of armed action is covered by this Treaty. There is also mention of ending "terrorism". Again, even Hitler could have argued he was fighting terrorism in Czechslovakia during WWII.

That's exactly it though isn't it? Why is it in Lisbon?

And my question was, clearly, do you think all mention of the EDA is superfluous in the Lisbon Treaty?

I'm very sorry, but I really don't have time to go through this with you. The Treaty doesn't cover "any type of armed action", the compatibility with NATO is there in the Treaty for the obvious reasons I given twice, and which you apparently don't understand, and my views on the EDA have already been set out.

regards,
Scofflaw

Empire o de Sun

The myth => Ireland is neutral

Ireland is only neutral cos joining NATO in the 50's would have involved a formal military alliance with the UK and therefore recognition of the status of Northern Ireland.

I have absolutely no problem with assisting any memeber of the EU that need assistance, be it civilian or military.

If Ireland was attached and invaded tomorrow, do you think the rest of the EU, particularly the big military powers, Britain and France, would stand back and say, well, you are Neutral, and therefore it's your problem, not ours.

To be Neutral, we would have to be able to defend ourselves. At the moment we'd struggle to defend the Curragh. Our supposed Neutrality is based on being a protectorate of NATO, weather we like it or not.

thecornerboy

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Treaty doesn't cover "any type of armed action"

Yes it does. It's open to any interpretation.

the compatibility with NATO is there in the Treaty for the obvious reasons I given twice, and which you apparently don't understand, and my views on the EDA have already been set out.

As I've told you twice, NATO is irrelevant to this debate, other than pointing out that most EU countries are already involved in a common defence pact outside of the EU. There is no need to bring it in to the EU.

Scofflaw

thecornerboy wrote: »

Yes it does. It's open to any interpretation.

As I've told you twice, NATO is irrelevant to this debate, other than pointing out that most EU countries are already involved in a common defence pact outside of the EU. There is no need to bring it in to the EU.

Yes - I've already said I don't have time to go through this with you, largely because you're aggressive and unpleasant about it.

regards,
Scofflaw