The European Defence Agency

Red Sleeping Beauty

The EDA is incorporated into the EU in a Treaty for the first time (if Lisbon's ratified by everyone). It was included in the Constitutional Treaty with practically the same wording.

I have serious reservations about this body. Through it, the European armaments industry has got a leg in the door so to speak. The EDA seeks to help improve member state's military capabilities, encourage competition and efficiency and to aid research and development of "defence equipment" (arms, weapons, instruments for killing in wars etc.).Their "long term vision" expands beyond that rhetoric and gives a hint to what they're also about. There's talk about the fallout of globalisation - "Globalisation will produce winners and losers, as between countries and regions, and within societies." - and that this will lead to tensions with regards to global energy demand for the surrounding European regions. According to it, one of the challenges of "defence" is being held accountable both politically and legally - "It is likely that policy could become increasingly restrictive about the conditions in which military force is deemed legitimate.".



I'm really not convinced that this group is just a way to make sure that EU member states get a good bargain or "more bang for your buck" (as Lucinda Creighton put it). I don't think there's enough restrictions surrounding the EDA to prevent a conflict of interest as the EDA of course wants to help the European armaments industry compete in the world market for arms. Also, its activity is not strictly bound by the UN, it's not stated in their long term vision nor does the Lisbon Treaty impose any such restrictions - in fact it says somewhat tellingly "Military action, not explicitly authorised by the UN may become increasingly controversial.".

During the campaigns and debates it's not really been featured that heavily outside of Sinn Fein/Mary-Lou MacDonald or Joe Higgins talking about increased militarisation - with neither really fully expanding on it. Unfortunately it's been the dodgy claims of an EU army or conscription - brought up mainly by the "yes" side this time round ironically enough - that have dominated the debates at the expense of a real debate on the EDA. Actually it's not even been discussed that much or in that great length on this site as far as I'm aware (I did a quick google site search).




How is this relevant to us and this Friday ? Ireland's a part of the EDA, has been a part of it since 2004 - when it was setup during Ireland's presidency without public debate - and we contribute to its budget*.There might be a guarantee there on Irish contribution to or participation in the EDA but the govt. (and the other two big parties) seem convinced that this agency's motives are entirely wholesome. That's not good enough for me especially considering that there's been three referenda on treaties which incorporate this group into EU law and nothings changed fundamentally about its purpose or direction. It's been suggested that if we were to opt-out of the EDA then we would lose influence on it. That may actually be true because the EDA's future, how it operates and its goals will be decided through QMV and Ireland keeps a veto if it's still a part of the (EDA) project. So it seems like a bit of a catch-22.


Is no one else the slightest bit worried or concerned about this European Defence Agency ?

Links:
EDA Finance Reports
Long Term Vision ;Long Term Vision.pdf

______________________________
* €283,797 in 2007 ; 1.36% of GNI

Scofflaw

What exactly is the concern about putting it in the Treaty, though? As you point out, it already exists, we're already part of it - what changes with Lisbon?

If the EDA is in the treaties, then any extension of it would need to be voted on - if it isn't in the treaties, it appears we don't get a vote on it at all.

One might have concerns about the agency itself (although it's no EU Pentagon but a procurement and research agency), but how are these in any way changed?


puzzled,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

yet again (this has been brought up about 4 times in last month already! search is in top right )

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Is no one else the slightest bit worried or concerned about this European Defence Agency ?

no i am not worried about €700,000 being spend on bullet proof equipment for our peace keepers

compared to €54,000,000,000 being spent on NAMA its a good investment and may save lives

more here http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-06-23.131.0


/

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yet again (this has been brought up about 4 times in last month already! search is in top right )



no i am not worried about €700,000 being spend on bullet proof equipment for our peace keepers

compared to €54,000,000,000 being spent on NAMA its a good investment and may save lives

more here http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-06-23.131.0


/

That is a very interesting way to phrase things.

8-10

Alan Rouge wrote: »

and we contribute to its budget*
______________________________
* €283,797 in 2007 ; 1.36% of GNI

I love this little stat you found, particularly the 1.36% of GNI bit. To the layman it would nearly seem that you're saying 1.36% of Ireland's Gross National Income is being contributed to the EDA.

But of course that would make no sense as €283,797 isn't really that big a figure at all is it? If we're talking Irish GNI, which is about €49,000 per capita, that's the equivalent of less than 6 Irish people. And that's before I point out that the €283k is the bugetary contribution and the actual cost to Ireland in 2007 was €265,849, leaving a surplus of 17k, returned to Ireland as a deduction from the 3rd contribution in year N+1 (15 October 2008)

What you don't seem to want to reference is that the GNI % is using the EU's own resources ceiling, which is clearly noted in the footnote of the revenue table I presume you took the stat from (p28 of the 2007.pdf). Ireland's cash value of GNI to the EU is 1.36% of all participating member states.

How is this stat relevant? By all means say we contributed €265k in 2007 but can I ask you why you've included 1.36% and how it relates to your argument in any way? It just seems you've picked out the sexier figures and stats?

MrMatisse

8-10 wrote: »

I love this little stat you found, particularly the 1.36% of GNI bit. To the layman it would nearly seem that you're saying 1.36% of Ireland's Gross National Income is being contributed to the EDA.

But of course that would make no sense as €283,797 isn't really that big a figure at all is it? If we're talking Irish GNI, which is about €49,000 per capita, that's the equivalent of less than 6 Irish people. And that's before I point out that the €283k is the bugetary contribution and the actual cost to Ireland in 2007 was €265,849, leaving a surplus of 17k, returned to Ireland as a deduction from the 3rd contribution in year N+1 (15 October 2008)

What you don't seem to want to reference is that the GNI % is using the EU's own resources ceiling, which is clearly noted in the footnote of the revenue table I presume you took the stat from (p28 of the 2007.pdf). Ireland's cash value of GNI to the EU is 1.36% of all participating member states.

How is this stat relevant? By all means say we contributed €265k in 2007 but can I ask you why you've included 1.36% and how it relates to your argument in any way? It just seems you've picked out the sexier figures and stats?

I think youd find it a big enough figure if the stuff it was being used to purchase were being dropped on you or the two special needs teachers it could fund youre not allowed have as their is no money.

8-10

Really-Stressed wrote: »

I think youd find it a big enough figure if the stuff it was being used to purchase were being dropped on you or the two special needs teachers it could fund youre not allowed have as their is no money.

My concern is with the percentage given simply as GNI. I meant it's not as big a figure as it's been made out to be

If the figure of €283,797 is a relatively big one in terms of the scenario you're talking about, don't you think it's lazy and innacurate for the €17,000 odd of this, which wasn't actually a cost to Ireland, to be included as the figure by the OP? When the actual cost of contribution was as I stated €265,849?

So the OP has picked out the biggest (and wrong) figure he/she could for the argument despite it being an overstatement of nearly 7%?

Isn't that a big figure to you then?

My point is simply quote the right figures and don't try to mislead with them, I'm not discussing them, just their presence as a footnote.

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote:

I think youd find it a big enough figure if the stuff it was being used to purchase were being dropped on you or the two special needs teachers it could fund youre not allowed have as their is no money.

would you say the same

if the research results in saving lives of our soldiers in Chad and other places, that bulletproof technology may save (or already saved) lives of our boys

are you gonna put a price on their life too?

our soldiers are given a job to do, but not given the equipment or technology to do it safely and effectively, they had to beg the French to airlift them to Chad since our military didnt have the capacity to do that, thats a national embarrassment

and that money comes from existing dept of defence budget, not from anywhere else

once again 700k over 3 years is much better use of money that the billions being wasted on banks and developers

or for that matter what about the millions being wasted by FAS

Scofflaw

Really-Stressed wrote: »

I think youd find it a big enough figure if the stuff it was being used to purchase were being dropped on you or the two special needs teachers it could fund youre not allowed have as their is no money.

Or you wanted to buy a house, of course - even with dropping prices, Ireland's contribution to the EDA would just about buy a two-bed semi-detached in DUblin.

However, nobody's asking one person to stump up the money (although they might ask Declan Ganley, who could presumably cover it out of petty cash), nor is the amount of our contribution set in Lisbon.

What's the relevance of this to Lisbon, or is it really just being brought up because it sounds a bit scary?

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Also, we can withdraw from the EDA research at any time, with our without Lisbon

/

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

would you say the same

if the research results in saving lives of our soldiers in Chad and other places, that bulletproof technology may save (or already saved) lives of our boys

are you gonna put a price on their life too?

our soldiers are given a job to do, but not given the equipment or technology to do it safely and effectively, they had to beg the French to airlift them to Chad since our military didnt have the capacity to do that, thats a national embarrassment

and that money comes from existing dept of defence budget, not from anywhere else

once again 700k over 3 years is much better use of money that the billions being wasted on banks and developers

or for that matter what about the millions being wasted by FAS

It is when you can just buy that equipment off the shelf already so dont need to carry out research into how to make it.

I really dont think we need to buy large troop carrying aircraft to ferrying the army around the world and we hardly had to beg the french.

MrMatisse

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or you wanted to buy a house, of course - even with dropping prices, Ireland's contribution to the EDA would just about buy a two-bed semi-detached in DUblin.

However, nobody's asking one person to stump up the money (although they might ask Declan Ganley, who could presumably cover it out of petty cash), nor is the amount of our contribution set in Lisbon.

What's the relevance of this to Lisbon, or is it really just being brought up because it sounds a bit scary?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Discussion around the mutual defence clauses in the thing and where they may lead. But im sure you now that.

Smugly,
Really-Stressed

8-10

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Discussion around the mutual defence clauses in the thing and where they may lead. But im sure you now that.

Smugly,
Really-Stressed

Stick in the relative quotes if you would as you go along. Your part of this discussion so far confuses me. What's your argument?

MrMatisse

8-10 wrote: »

Stick in the relative quotes if you would as you go along. Your part of this discussion so far confuses me. What's your argument?

Sorry to confuse you.
Spending money on weapons is not a good way to spend it when it is better spent elsewhere.

Why carry out research into how to make weapons we need when you can already buy them off the shelf.

ei.sdraob

since when are bullet proof technology considered weapons?

that 700K wouldnt buy a tank never mind any reasonable sized equipment

and its a bit rich of Sinn Fein to criticize EDA when they are tied to scumbags and murderers who killed guards and civilians here in this country with their private army of thugs


the 700k is being used in a research project with other countries, and all the participants get the results and benefits, the 700k alone wouldn't get you the technology since its only available after the research is done

once again a good investment when compared to other rubbish our government is spending money on, and the fact that it will save lives


but sure whats the point of telling you, we present figures and facts and you just wave your hands around

ive yet to see a thread where you have provided any figures and facts to backup your opinion

typical

ixtlan

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Sorry to confuse you.
Spending money on weapons is not a good way to spend it when it is better spent elsewhere.

Why carry out research into how to make weapons we need when you can already buy them off the shelf.

Taken in isolation this sounds good. However if I said spending money on protecting refugees in Chad is not not a good way to spend it when it is better spent elsewhere, would you agree?

Ix

marco_polo

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Discussion around the mutual defence clauses in the thing and where they may lead. But im sure you now that.

Smugly,
Really-Stressed

I thought this thread was about the EDA? Are we now talking about the Solitarity Clause?

ei.sdraob

since when is

research into defensive bulletproof technologies to save lives of our peacekeepers

equals to

Really-Stressed wrote:

Why carry out research into how to make weapons we need when you can already buy them off the shelf.

Talk about the NO side getting desperate and taking things out of all context

marco_polo wrote: »

I thought this thread was about the EDA? Are we now talking about the Solitarity Clause?

he would not admit that hes in the wrong and tried to unsuccessfully twist things into something that they are clearly not,
so now hes trying to change subject, dont let him!


/

MrMatisse

ixtlan wrote: »

Taken in isolation this sounds good. However if I said spending money on protecting refugees in Chad is not not a good way to spend it when it is better spent elsewhere, would you agree?

Ix

The French should cough up more money to do it properly since is their mess.

According to yesterdays times the peacekeeping mission is not having much of an effect.

We would have to spend huge amounts of money to do it properly. We cant fund everthing especially clean up operations for messy colonial legacies.

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

since when is


equals to




Talk about the NO side getting desperate and taking things out of all context


/

YOU CAN ALREADY BUY IT.

YOU DONT CARRY OUT RESEARCH INTO THINGS YOU CAN ALREADY BUY WHEN MONEY IS TIGHT.

8-10

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Sorry to confuse you.
Spending money on weapons is not a good way to spend it when it is better spent elsewhere.

Why carry out research into how to make weapons we need when you can already buy them off the shelf.

Yet again no quotes? How much are the EU currently spending in this area? (hint: financial report 2007 in OP's post) Is this going to change as a result of the Lisbon vote? Please quote the text. (hint: www.lisbontreaty2009.ie)

If we have been a member of the EDA since 2004 shouldn't your objection have been made then?

MrMatisse

8-10 wrote: »

Yet again no quotes? How much are the EU currently spending in this area? (hint: financial report 2007 in OP's post) Is this going to change as a result of the Lisbon vote? Please quote the text. (hint: www.lisbontreaty2009.ie)

If we have been a member of the EDA since 2004 shouldn't your objection have been made then?

Countries have an obligation to improve their armies.

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

YOU CAN ALREADY BUY IT.

YOU DONT CARRY OUT RESEARCH INTO THINGS YOU CAN ALREADY BUY WHEN MONEY IS TIGHT.

[citation needed]

[reference needed]

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Countries have an obligation to improve their armies.

Irish army buys a radio

obligation fulfilled

something that we would have to buy anyways

/

8-10

Really-Stressed wrote: »

YOU CAN ALREADY BUY IT.

Bulletproof weapons?

link?

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

The French should cough up more money to do it properly since is their mess.

According to yesterdays times the peacekeeping mission is not having much of an effect.

We would have to spend huge amounts of money to do it properly. We cant fund everthing especially clean up operations for messy colonial legacies.

[citation needed]

[reference needed]

8-10

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Countries have an obligation to improve their armies.

link? quote text? am i really asking again???

MrMatisse

8-10 wrote: »

Bulletproof weapons?

link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar

Or contact your local US embassy.

MrMatisse

8-10 wrote: »

link? quote text? am i really asking again???

I suggest you monitor the other threads as well as this one. Has been donr to death

Or consult ei.sdraob or perhaps read the treaty.

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Irish army buys a radio

obligation fulfilled

something that we would have to buy anyways

/

I dont think thats what they mean.

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar

Or contact your local US embassy.

at what price?

once again alot of fud and opinion but no references and facts to backup your points

pft

Really-Stressed wrote: »

I dont think thats what they mean.

who is "they"

?

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

[citation needed]

[reference needed]

You musnt have seen yesterdays Irish times.

Prob beacuse you/yee spend 17 hours a day on boards.

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

at what price?

once again alot of fud and opinion but no references and facts to backup your points

pft



who is "they"

?

I gave you a reference. You can ring up for a price.

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

You musnt have seen the front page of yesterdays Irish times.

Prob beacuse you/yee spend 17 hours a day on boards.

what cant you answer the questions put to you, you are not getting of that easy mister

so you turn (yet again) to personal attacks?

you dug a hole for yourself, either answer the questions and provide proof (since you are the ones making claims here) or get out of the pan

Really-Stressed wrote: »

I gave you a reference. You can ring up for a price.

you are the one making the claim

you are the one who needs to provide facts and figures to backup your claim

otherwise its nothing more that fud and opinion

/

8-10

Really-Stressed wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar

Or contact your local US embassy.

Thanks. Oooh "Kevlar is very popular material for racing canoes"

"Civilian applications include Kevlar reinforced clothing for motorcycle riders to protect against abrasion injuries and also Emergency Service's protection gear if it involves high heat"

"It is used as an inner lining for some bicycle tires to prevent punctures"

"Kevlar is well-known as a component of some bullet resistant vests"

"It has also been found to have useful acoustic properties for loudspeaker cones"

"Kevlar was a key part of the design of Montreal's Olympic stadium for the 1976 Summer Olympics"

Sorry, your link is amusing, but I fail to see the part where it's used as a weapon?

Better link?

luckat

The original poster makes a fair point. Do we want to be part of a military alliance?

We already are, to the extent that our soldiers take on peacekeeping duties for the UN, and have done so for many years.

I'm not speaking as an expert, but I *think* the EU wants all armies to have similar equipment, so it's not a hames if they have to work together. Again, not an expert, but isn't Irish neutrality accepted by the Lisbon Treaty?

I'm not going to insult either the yes or the no side; this provides little help in reaching a sensible decision.

ei.sdraob

luckat wrote: »

The original poster makes a fair point. Do we want to be part of a military alliance?

where in Lisbon does it say we will become part of a military alliance? what military alliance?

were part of EDA (a research agency into defense technologies) for several years now, its not NATO or anything like that

and can leave at any time with or without Lisbon

/

8-10

luckat wrote: »

The original poster makes a fair point. Do we want to be part of a military alliance?

The Decision on Ireland’s legal guarantees, adopted at the June 2009 European Council states that “the Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality”.

The Common Security and Defence Policy's primary function is to provide the Union with an operational capacity to undertake peace-keeping and crisis management missions outside the territory of the Union. It does so by drawing on the civilian and military capabilities of the Member States.

The twenty-sixth amendment to our Constitution, approved by the people as part of the ratification of the Nice Treaty in October 2002, prohibits the State from entering into a common defence established under the Treaties. The wording of the proposed Constitutional amendment permitting ratification of the Lisbon Treaty carries this provision forward.

We voted for Nice, prohibiting Ireland from entering into a common defence (I presume this is what you mean by military alliance? We will still collaberate with other countries on certain peace-keeping missions which we can opt-into at our discretion, same as it is currently), this provision is maintained under Lisbon.

Fear not!

Scofflaw

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Sorry to confuse you.
Spending money on weapons is not a good way to spend it when it is better spent elsewhere.

Why carry out research into how to make weapons we need when you can already buy them off the shelf.

OK, you object to the spending, minimal as it is - but what does it have to do with Lisbon? We're in the EDA, the EDA exists - neither of those are changed by Lisbon.

I'm not seeing the relationship here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

luckat wrote: »

The original poster makes a fair point. Do we want to be part of a military alliance?

We already are, to the extent that our soldiers take on peacekeeping duties for the UN, and have done so for many years.

I'm not speaking as an expert, but I *think* the EU wants all armies to have similar equipment, so it's not a hames if they have to work together. Again, not an expert, but isn't Irish neutrality accepted by the Lisbon Treaty?

I'm not going to insult either the yes or the no side; this provides little help in reaching a sensible decision.

Irish neutrality is protected in Lisbon by the same mechanisms that have been in every treaty. We have a Constitutional prohibition on joining a common defence, and a veto on any common foreign policy, and any of the issues that might be felt to infringe our neutrality are required in the treaty text to operate without prejudice to our neutrality (aka "the specific character of our security and defence policy" ).

Neither EDA membership, nor the mutual assistance provisions of the Treaty, require us to either take part in, or support, any military operations, nor do they require any commitment on our part to increased military spending:

GUARANTEE ON SECURITY AND DEFENCE (New)

The Union's action on the international scene is guided by the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The Union's common security and defence policy is an integral part of the common foreign and security policy and provides the Union with an operational capacity to undertake missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.

It does not prejudice the security and defence policy of each Member State, including Ireland, or the obligations of any Member State.

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.

Any decision to move to a common defence will require a unanimous decision of the European Council. It would be a matter for the Member States, including Ireland, to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and with their respective constitutional requirements, whether or not to adopt a common defence.

Nothing in this Section affects or prejudices the position or policy of any other Member State on security and defence.

It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured cooperation or the European Defence Agency.

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

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities. It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

The idea behind Ireland being part of the EDA is in order to save money by buying standardised European military equipment, and by using standardised European procurement processes:

D&#225 wrote: »

Ireland is a contributor to initiatives and the ongoing work programme of the EDA, which includes identifying and overcoming shortfalls in capabilities development to increase the capacity of the Union to undertake appropriate peace support operations. These include initiatives in relation to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosives protection, CBRNE, communication and network systems and improved Counter-IED, improvised explosive devices, capability to enable military forces to operate safely.

In 2007, Ireland joined the Joint Investment Programme on Force Protection, which has a budget of €55 million over three years. Ireland’s contribution amounts to €700,000 over the three years. Force protection involves measures to protect personnel engaged in peace support and crisis management operations overseas and is one of the main factors considered when undertaking any operation. Ireland’s key interest in the programme is in the development of technologies and capabilities to protect troops from threats such as snipers, booby traps and improvised explosive devices. Body armour, sensors and counter explosive devices are all key elements of the programme.

Ireland also participates in the EDA’s code of conduct for defence procurement and a code of best practice in the supply chain, developed to ensure transparency in procurement and security of supply of defence equipment. The EDA have also developed a European bulletin board, which acts as a single portal for defence contract opportunities. This has enabled wider advertising of Ireland’s defence force contracts so as to achieve better value for money for Ireland’s expenditure on defensive equipment.

The main benefit is the "cash and carry" benefit - Ireland on its own places small orders, which cost more per Irish soldier:

D&#225 wrote: »

The benefits of the EDA for Ireland are twofold. First, it allows for economies of scale. It will allow us to get much better value for the money we are spending on defence equipment by regularising the market. The market has been very fragmented and the EDA has done much to bring it together. Second, it has enabled Ireland to avail of the same information and research as our potential EU partners in peacekeeping. When Irish troops go into the arena as part of a UN-mandated EU mission, they will have communications equipment, tanks and general military equipment that are compatible with that of their partners. That is designed to make the operation more efficient and to ensure the safety of our troops.

cordially,
Scofflaw

luckat

Are we part of the European Battle Groups?

Scofflaw

luckat wrote: »

Are we part of the European Battle Groups?

Yes - we have 85 soldiers in the Nordic Battlegroup.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MrMatisse

8-10 wrote: »

Thanks. Oooh "Kevlar is very popular material for racing canoes"

"Civilian applications include Kevlar reinforced clothing for motorcycle riders to protect against abrasion injuries and also Emergency Service's protection gear if it involves high heat"

"It is used as an inner lining for some bicycle tires to prevent punctures"

"Kevlar is well-known as a component of some bullet resistant vests"

"It has also been found to have useful acoustic properties for loudspeaker cones"

"Kevlar was a key part of the design of Montreal's Olympic stadium for the 1976 Summer Olympics"

Sorry, your link is amusing, but I fail to see the part where it's used as a weapon?

Better link?

Also says used in Kevlar body armor such as vests for police officers, security, and SWAT. ( You must have missed that bit) and is used as a temporary lining on american hummers as the discovery channel will tell you.

RealityCheck

luckat wrote: »

Are we part of the European Battle Groups?

As said above yes we are in the Nordic Battlegroup under Swedish command. Also includes troops from Finland, Estonia and even Norway who are not even in the EU.
This of course makes sense considering that we are the more militarily benign countries of Europe.
The group will be on call for deployment in early 2011, but only in UN sanctioned missions.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Scofflaw wrote: »

What exactly is the concern about putting it in the Treaty, though? As you point out, it already exists, we're already part of it - what changes with Lisbon?

If the EDA is in the treaties, then any extension of it would need to be voted on - if it isn't in the treaties, it appears we don't get a vote on it at all.

One might have concerns about the agency itself (although it's no EU Pentagon but a procurement and research agency), but how are these in any way changed?


puzzled,
Scofflaw

The EDA gains greater legitimacy and status from being incorporated into the institutional structure of the EU from the treaty. I really don't believe you overlook it being given treaty status as a significant step. Do you ?

Scofflaw

Alan Rouge wrote: »

The EDA gains greater legitimacy and status from being incorporated into the institutional structure of the EU from the treaty. I really don't believe you overlook it being given treaty status as a significant step. Do you ?

I can see a use to it, in that any extension of its remit will require a new treaty and an Irish referendum, which its current status doesn't.

Other than that, no, I have no real idea why you think it's significant. Perhaps you could explain?

cordially,
Scofflaw

8-10

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Also says used in Kevlar body armor such as vests for police officers, security, and SWAT. ( You must have missed that bit) and is used as a temporary lining on american hummers as the discovery channel will tell you.

How is body armor a weapon though? Do you throw it?

Edit: I got that bit, I understand it's considered military spending. But I originally asked where you think this weaponary research spending is. How much is it? What weapons are being bought? Please for the love of God give an answer with a relevant link to the finances indicating weapon-spending (please no more body armor), and the text of the treaty which you argue. Last time I ask, I promise.

I really just want the figures.

luckat

It's hard to give figures. Some software companies are listed as "defence contractors" because they sell to foreign governments' war defence departments, I think.

ei.sdraob

luckat wrote: »

It's hard to give figures. Some software companies are listed as "defence contractors" because they sell to foreign governments' war defence departments, I think.

the figure is 700,000 being spend by Ireland

for a bullet proof armor research project with other EU countries

reference provided earlier in thread

theres nothing more to it

bk

Really-Stressed wrote: »

YOU CAN ALREADY BUY IT.

YOU DONT CARRY OUT RESEARCH INTO THINGS YOU CAN ALREADY BUY WHEN MONEY IS TIGHT.

Actually you can't. The body armour Irish soldiers currently wear is only good enough to stop handgun rounds and low powered rifle rounds, it isn't good enough to stop high caliber rifle rounds, the type found in sniper rifles.

The US does have body armour capable of stopping high caliber rifle rounds, it is called level4+ armour. The problem is they don't allow it to be exported and sold outside the US (even US police can't get it).

So if we want equivalent body armour, we are going to have to develop it our selfs.

BTW even the US continues to spend tens if not hundreds of millions on researching new armour, as the current level4+ armour is very heavy, so lots of soldiers don't wear it and it isn't perfect protection, some higher caliber rounds can still penetrate it.