Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Concern over military aspects in the Lisbon treaty

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #33
    Empire o de Sun
    Registered Users Posts: 369 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    thecornerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 204 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭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


Advertisement