Five EU countries call for new military 'structure'

yermanoffthetv

http://euobserver.com/defence/118226

Exerpt:

BRUSSELS - Five leading EU countries, but not the UK, have said the Union needs a new military "structure" to manage overseas operations. The foreign and defence ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain issued the call in a joint communique after a meeting in Paris on Thursday (15 November).
The paper says: "We are convinced that the EU must set up, within a framework yet to-be-defined, true civilian-military structures to plan and conduct missions and operations."
It adds: "We should show preparedness to hold available, train, deploy and sustain in theatre the necessary civilian and military means."

Interesting the use of the term civilian-military structures, I wonder could this mean a sort of department of defence of the EU? Anyway if anyone still has their head in the sand that Ireland is a neutral or non-aligned country, the creation of such an organisation would make our "neutrality" irrelevant, veto or not.


Opinions?

Some Help Please

Truth is we already have military personnel serving in NATO led missions so that says it all. Not many people seem to know that we have a small number Of soldiers in Afghanistan. Doesn't get less neutral then there!

Ballantine

Some Help Please wrote: »

Truth is we already have military personnel serving in NATO led missions so that says it all. Not many people seem to know that we have a small number Of soldiers in Afghanistan. Doesn't get less neutral then there!

You don't see any differences between a NATO led UN Mandated peace keeping mission, and Irish soldiers being directed by an EU commander to take part in offensive operations?

oscarBravo

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

...the creation of such an organisation would make our "neutrality" irrelevant, veto or not.

How?

Ballantine

oscarBravo wrote: »

How?

By definition.

charlemont

Why shouldn't these nations organise a military structure between them, Relying on Uncle Sam is a bit dated now. Europe should have a stand alone military structure for whatever countries want to be in it.

To see nations that went to war aginst each other having a united force after 60/70 years is a good thing.

oscarBravo

Ballantine wrote: »

By definition.

I would have settled for "I don't know".

Ballantine

as I know the definition of neutrality, it would be dishonest to pretend I don't know it.

getz

charlemont wrote: »

Why shouldn't these nations organise a military structure between them, Relying on Uncle Sam is a bit dated now. Europe should have a stand alone military structure for whatever countries want to be in it.

To see nations that went to war aginst each other having a united force after 60/70 years is a good thing.

with the spanish involved its bound crash

oscarBravo

Ballantine wrote: »

as I know the definition of neutrality, it would be dishonest to pretend I don't know it.

It might be a useful contribution to the discussion to explain how other countries entering into a military pact would have any effect on our policy of non-alignment.

If you're content to continue to make non-useful contributions, fair enough.

Scofflaw

Ballantine wrote: »

Truth is we already have military personnel serving in NATO led missions so that says it all. Not many people seem to know that we have a small number Of soldiers in Afghanistan. Doesn't get less neutral then there!

You don't see any differences between a NATO led UN Mandated peace keeping mission, and Irish soldiers being directed by an EU commander to take part in offensive operations?

Obviously there would be a large difference, just as there would be between an EU led UN mandated peace keeping mission and Irish soldiers being directed by a NATO commander to take part in offensive operations.

The difference, however, isn't the organisation involved. There's no difference for us between a NATO-led UN-mandated peacekeeping mission and an EU-led UN-mandated peacekeeping mission - well, a small one, in that NATO is an explicitly military organisation (and definitely constitutes one 'side' of the Cold War division, which seems to endure).

The setting up of an EU military-civilian command and deployment structure doesn't require or even imply any changes in Ireland's unique version of neutrality. We would be involved only under the same conditions we are currently involved in EU deployments - that is, when our particular conditions for deployment are met under the Triple Lock. The difference is that when/if we did deploy, we would do so under the new structure.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ballantine

oscarBravo wrote: »

It might be a useful contribution to the discussion to explain how other countries entering into a military pact would have any effect on our policy of non-alignment.

If you're content to continue to make non-useful contributions, fair enough.

I agree, but thought the one word question "How?" seemed to demand a short answer, rather than a longer explanation. I can imagine it's a bit deflating here to go to the trouble of making a longish post, to be answered by a one word answer.

The definition of neutrality is "not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial".

Richard tea

Was part of the Lisbon 2 treaty geared towards setting up a new EU military force

Ballantine

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's no difference for us between a NATO-led UN-mandated peacekeeping mission and an EU-led UN-mandated peacekeeping mission -

Are you suggesting that "...a framework yet to-be-defined, true civilian-military structures to plan and conduct missions and operations..." is defined as peace keeping missions only?

Scofflaw wrote: »

The setting up of an EU military-civilian command and deployment structure doesn't require or even imply any changes in Ireland's unique version of neutrality. We would be involved only under the same conditions we are currently involved in EU deployments - that is, when our particular conditions for deployment are met under the Triple Lock. The difference is that when/if we did deploy, we would do so under the new structure.

Personally I have no views on Ireland's neutral status, and if Ireland chooses to get involved then that's their choice. I have always felt that Ireland's official neutrality in WW2 was a sham if not something of a disgrace.

The real issue here is that the EU seems to be creeping towards control in all areas, financial, social, legal, fiscal, foreign policy and is also assuming a military force. The danger of this is that the people of the EU are not in agreement, and to proceed without the agreement of the people seems foolish if not dangerous. History is full of examples of the consequences where those in power acted against the wishes of the people, and my naturally cautious nature wonders if this is another example.

oscarBravo

Ballantine wrote: »

I agree, but thought the one word question "How?" seemed to demand a short answer, rather than a longer explanation. I can imagine it's a bit deflating here to go to the trouble of making a longish post, to be answered by a one word answer.

The definition of neutrality is "not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial".

That's not an answer to my question. With respect, if you're not interested in answering the question, you'd waste less of both your time and mine by not replying.

Ballantine

Richard tea wrote: »

Was part of the Lisbon 2 treaty geared towards setting up a new EU military force

Presumably that's a rhetorical question

Most governments work on the ratcheting principle;

(i) say they will never do such and such

(ii) do it anyhow and either pretend they aren't doing it or say it's not the same thing as they said they'd never do

(iii) say it's done now anyhow and there is nothing they can do to reverse it

Scofflaw

Ballantine wrote: »

Are you suggesting that "...a framework yet to-be-defined, true civilian-military structures to plan and conduct missions and operations..." is defined as peace keeping missions only?

Not at all, any more than NATO only engages in peace-keeping missions. I'm pointing out that our requirements for deployment - the Triple Lock - limit us to peace-keeping missions, whether with NATO or whoever. The creation of an EU deployment/command structure doesn't change that.

Ballantine wrote: »

Personally I have no views on Ireland's neutral status, and if Ireland chooses to get involved then that's their choice. I have always felt that Ireland's official neutrality in WW2 was a sham if not something of a disgrace.

The real issue here is that the EU seems to be creeping towards control in all areas, financial, social, legal, fiscal, foreign policy and is also assuming a military force. The danger of this is that the people of the EU are not in agreement, and to proceed without the agreement of the people seems foolish if not dangerous. History is full of examples of the consequences where those in power acted against the wishes of the people, and my naturally cautious nature wonders if this is another example.

The EU doesn't itself creep towards any of these things, though - they come about because a majority, or even a unanimity, of European governments decide, on behalf of the people who elected them, that these things should be done at the European level.

That seems to me to be the job of governments, and the government of, in this case, the five countries making the suggestion, require the support of their own voters and of the remaining governments before their proposal for a joint European structure can be put to the various parliaments and plebiscites which have the final say.

So, all drama aside, it's a proposal, and should be looked at on its merits, rather than on the pretence that it either affects Ireland's neutrality or is some kind of EU power grab.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ballantine

Scofflaw wrote: »

The EU doesn't itself creep towards any of these things, though - they come about because a majority, or even a unanimity, of European governments decide, on behalf of the people who elected them, that these things should be done at the European level.

I'm not sure I'd agree. For example, the creation of the Euro and the consequences, which were predicted and denied at the time, more or less ensure that the EU will end up taking control of fiscal and taxation policy.

(i) it was denied the creation of the Euro would lead to fiscal and taxation policy being controlled by the EU

(ii) the Euro went ahead and the predicted problems with the currency in individual countries happened

(iii) the EU says it's happened now and the only solution is for the EU to take control of fiscal and tax policy.

That's creeping towards taking control of fiscal and tax policy, even if the creep takes a number of years.

I'm not suggesting that the same will happen with a military force in the short or even medium terms. It's hard to believe that in this area the EU will not strive to extend its influence over time, just as it does in other areas.

Scofflaw

Ballantine wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd agree. For example, the creation of the Euro and the consequences, which were predicted and denied at the time, more or less ensure that the EU will end up taking control of fiscal and taxation policy.

(i) it was denied the creation of the Euro would lead to fiscal and taxation policy being controlled by the EU

(ii) the Euro went ahead and the predicted problems with the currency in individual countries happened

(iii) the EU says it's happened now and the only solution is for the EU to take control of fiscal and tax policy.

That's creeping towards taking control of fiscal and tax policy, even if the creep takes a number of years.

I'm not suggesting that the same will happen with a military force in the short or even medium terms. It's hard to believe that in this area the EU will not strive to extend its influence over time, just as it does in other areas.

It's always very wearying - and I'm not aiming this at you entirely - that these discussions can't get past first base on any honest terms. To put it that "the EU" is "creeping towards taking control of fiscal and tax policy" is either lazy, uninformed, or dishonest, when what is happening is that some countries in the EU are proposing that the EU countries jointly coordinate and review their economic policies.

The way you've put it immediately plays to certain stereotypes - that the EU is unaccountable, remote, and power-hungry, and is malevolently infringing on the prerogatives of national governments. On the contrary, the EU is a framework for joint action between the member governments, and the extent of its powers is determined not by it itself but by those same member governments. Even where the CJEU determines that in order for the institutions that serve that joint framework to carry out some treaty-mandated task Y they require some competence X, where competence X wasn't explicitly granted in the treaty - that being the famous 'competence creep' - all that is required to preserve that competence in national hands is to remove task Y from them in the next treaty.

The EU, in itself, doesn't go forward - it is driven forward by the actions of the governments who use it as a framework for joint action. It may call for certain actions or express a preference for certain routes forward, as the Commission and Parliament have done during the crisis, but they can simply be ignored, as the Commission and Parliament have been during the crisis, because neither of them hold the real power in the EU.

So - coming round again to the topic of the thread - in this case, as in others, it's hard to have any meaningful discussion on whether the proposal by these five countries is a useful one if some of the parties to the discussion are going to pretend that it's "the EU" who want this in the unaccountable and hostile way such terminology immediately implies, and with the near-inevitable accompanying pretence that it's some kind of malevolent erosion of our cherished neutrality.

Instead, the question is whether the five proposers will get support, what that support is, what convoluted treaty terms are likely to result from negotiations if the matter gets that far, and what use may be made of such structures as may be created. It is certainly possible for the actions of the EU governments to be divorced from the real needs or desires of their citizens (although it's not in fact the general rule some people assume it to be), and governments undeniably need to be watched. In our case, our government is barely watched at all in Europe - we watch the German government, or the French government, but rarely have any idea what our government is actually doing or saying.

Whether our government would decide to support such a move is an open area for speculation - the current government might do so, but is at least likely to honestly say it is if it does, where a Fianna Fáil government would have presented it as you have done even if they were supporting/passing it in negotiations. I would have thought that attaching any such proposal for a military structure to a treaty proposal would be similar to attaching lead weights to a balloon - not that EU treaties are particularly balloon-like, with the obvious exception of being air-filled.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ballantine

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's always very wearying - and I'm not aiming this at you entirely - that these discussions can't get past first base on any honest terms. To put it that "the EU" is "creeping towards taking control of fiscal and tax policy" is either lazy, uninformed, or dishonest, when what is happening is that some countries in the EU are proposing that the EU countries jointly coordinate and review their economic policies.

The way you've put it immediately plays to certain stereotypes - that the EU is unaccountable, remote, and power-hungry, and is malevolently infringing on the prerogatives of national governments. On the contrary, the EU is a framework for joint action between the member governments, and the extent of its powers is determined not by it itself but by those same member governments. Even where the CJEU determines that in order for the institutions that serve that joint framework to carry out some treaty-mandated task Y they require some competence X, where competence X wasn't explicitly granted in the treaty - that being the famous 'competence creep' - all that is required to preserve that competence in national hands is to remove task Y from them in the next treaty.

The EU, in itself, doesn't go forward - it is driven forward by the actions of the governments who use it as a framework for joint action. It may call for certain actions or express a preference for certain routes forward, as the Commission and Parliament have done during the crisis, but they can simply be ignored, as the Commission and Parliament have been during the crisis, because neither of them hold the real power in the EU.

So - coming round again to the topic of the thread - in this case, as in others, it's hard to have any meaningful discussion on whether the proposal by these five countries is a useful one if some of the parties to the discussion are going to pretend that it's "the EU" who want this in the unaccountable and hostile way such terminology immediately implies, and with the near-inevitable accompanying pretence that it's some kind of malevolent erosion of our cherished neutrality.

Instead, the question is whether the five proposers will get support, what that support is, what convoluted treaty terms are likely to result from negotiations if the matter gets that far, and what use may be made of such structures as may be created. It is certainly possible for the actions of the EU governments to be divorced from the real needs or desires of their citizens (although it's not in fact the general rule some people assume it to be), and governments undeniably need to be watched. In our case, our government is barely watched at all in Europe - we watch the German government, or the French government, but rarely have any idea what our government is actually doing or saying.

Whether our government would decide to support such a move is an open area for speculation - the current government might do so, but is at least likely to honestly say it is if it does, where a Fianna Fáil government would have presented it as you have done even if they were supporting/passing it in negotiations. I would have thought that attaching any such proposal for a military structure to a treaty proposal would be similar to attaching lead weights to a balloon - not that EU treaties are particularly balloon-like, with the obvious exception of being air-filled.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In a court of law what would be used to assess the strength or otherwise of an argument are the obvective facts, and there are a number of things to say about this.

Firstly, one objective fact is that the EU is using the situtation surrounding the problems with the Euro in such a way as to gain more power for the EU.

Secondly, it was predicted that the creation of the Euro would lead to a situation where the stresses which have seen were predicted, and known about well before the Euro was created.

The facts are that there is growing unease amongst the people of the EU about the direction of the EU, about ceding powers to the EU, and about their feeling of a lack of accountability with the structures of the EU to the citizens. In a democracy, there is only so long the wishes of the people can be ignored.

The progress of the EU has so far depended on the collusion of the elites, but this model is less and less acceptable to the people of the EU as can be seen in poll after poll across the countries of the EU.

The agrument is not necessarily a fiscal one, or an economic one, or an argument against the competence which has been so curiously lacking over the whole Euro crises. The argument more and more a constitutional one, and single events such as the competence over the Euro crises, or the incompetence over the EU accounts, are issues which act as catalysts for citizens to voice their concerns.

We can ignore those concerns at length, but the constitutional question of sovereignty is unlikely to disapper and, if anything, is likely to become more acute with the citizens across the EU, as events unfold.

KyussBishop

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's always very wearying - and I'm not aiming this at you entirely - that these discussions can't get past first base on any honest terms. To put it that "the EU" is "creeping towards taking control of fiscal and tax policy" is either lazy, uninformed, or dishonest, when what is happening is that some countries in the EU are proposing that the EU countries jointly coordinate and review their economic policies.

The way you've put it immediately plays to certain stereotypes - that the EU is unaccountable, remote, and power-hungry, and is malevolently infringing on the prerogatives of national governments. On the contrary, the EU is a framework for joint action between the member governments, and the extent of its powers is determined not by it itself but by those same member governments. Even where the CJEU determines that in order for the institutions that serve that joint framework to carry out some treaty-mandated task Y they require some competence X, where competence X wasn't explicitly granted in the treaty - that being the famous 'competence creep' - all that is required to preserve that competence in national hands is to remove task Y from them in the next treaty.

The EU does have de-facto control over our fiscal policies though, by us not having the ability to fund programs through money creation? This is not absolute control, it is control in that we are restricted in how we can spend, the methods which we can spend, and the amount; that's a lot of heavy restriction, which amounts to mandated cuts in spending, which is a lot of control over fiscal policy (the control we still have, is just deciding which bits of the buget/public-services to set fire to and burn up).

We've undoubtedly been strong-armed by some of the larger EU members over the course of this crisis, and even much of our current government feels that way about it.

We don't have any democratic control over that, because larger EU nations are able to hold discussion over economic policy in limbo, including where it comes to funding stuff through money creation (such as a potential job guarantee, which I've been discussing at length in this thread).

Scofflaw

Ballantine wrote: »

In a court of law what would be used to assess the strength or otherwise of an argument are the obvective facts, and there are a number of things to say about this.

Firstly, one objective fact is that the EU is using the situtation surrounding the problems with the Euro in such a way as to gain more power for the EU.

Objectively, that's not a fact, I'm afraid. Some (many) of the EU Member States feel that further integration is part of the solution to the crisis - the institutional EU has gained no powers it hasn't been entrusted.

Also, to be entirely objective, facts are often not the determining issue in a court of law either...

Ballantine wrote: »

Secondly, it was predicted that the creation of the Euro would lead to a situation where the stresses which have seen were predicted, and known about well before the Euro was created.

Actually, as far as I can see, all people seem to recall is "problems were predicted", and jump from that to "there are problems" in order to say "the current problems were predicted". The current issues with the euro weren't predicted, at least in any meaningful manner, as far as I can recall - entirely different ones were predicted, which people have something of a tendency to claim happened, but without offering much depth of evidence.

The one thing that wasn't very strongly referenced at the time of the euro's creation (again as far as I can recall) was the absence of a crisis mechanism, which has been the single most serious euro issue.

Ballantine wrote: »

The facts are that there is growing unease amongst the people of the EU about the direction of the EU, about ceding powers to the EU, and about their feeling of a lack of accountability with the structures of the EU to the citizens. In a democracy, there is only so long the wishes of the people can be ignored.

In times of recession, there's always a "growing unease" with the political establishment. The EU is coming in for a greater share of it now because it plays a greater role, but whether the current downturn in sentiment is either permanent or politically motivational remains to be seen.

Ballantine wrote: »

The progress of the EU has so far depended on the collusion of the elites, but this model is less and less acceptable to the people of the EU as can be seen in poll after poll across the countries of the EU.

That's a very popular claim, but whether it's actually true is not determined by its popularity. Pessimistically, I suspect it's probably not.

Ballantine wrote: »

The agrument is not necessarily a fiscal one, or an economic one, or an argument against the competence which has been so curiously lacking over the whole Euro crises. The argument more and more a constitutional one, and single events such as the competence over the Euro crises, or the incompetence over the EU accounts, are issues which act as catalysts for citizens to voice their concerns.

We can ignore those concerns at length, but the constitutional question of sovereignty is unlikely to disapper and, if anything, is likely to become more acute with the citizens across the EU, as events unfold.

Eh, maybe, but there may be aspects of wishful thinking there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

KyussBishop wrote: »

The EU does have de-facto control over our fiscal policies though, by us not having the ability to fund programs through money creation? This is not absolute control, it is control in that we are restricted in how we can spend, the methods which we can spend, and the amount; that's a lot of heavy restriction, which amounts to mandated cuts in spending, which is a lot of control over fiscal policy (the control we still have, is just deciding which bits of the buget/public-services to set fire to and burn up).

That is, as you say, a de facto rather than a de jure control - and in one sense it results from the even greater de facto control over our fiscal policies by the markets.

KyussBishop wrote: »

We've undoubtedly been strong-armed by some of the larger EU members over the course of this crisis, and even much of our current government feels that way about it.

Undeniably the case.

KyussBishop wrote: »

We don't have any democratic control over that, because larger EU nations are able to hold discussion over economic policy in limbo, including where it comes to funding stuff through money creation (such as a potential job guarantee, which I've been discussing at length in this thread).

From our perspective, it's one of the major issues with the absence of a euro crisis mechanism - the result has been to subject everyone to the haggling, grandstanding, and political whims of the larger states while the crisis has continued to unfold around all of us.

We're all very unused to such (relatively) naked power plays, which makes them all the less enjoyable, but they're a reminder of what the EU generally exists to avoid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ballantine

Ballantine wrote: »

Firstly, one objective fact is that the EU is using the situtation surrounding the problems with the Euro in such a way as to gain more power for the EU.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Objectively, that's not a fact, I'm afraid. Some (many) of the EU Member States feel that further integration is part of the solution to the crisis - the institutional EU has gained no powers it hasn't been entrusted.

There are proposals to regulate the banks from the center, and take away powers of regulation from the individual states. To many that is the EU gaining more power and the individual states giving up power to the center. This is the next big item on the agenda and it will be much discussed over the coming months.

That’s just one example and, sure, you can decide that it’s not member states giving up more power, but unfortunately that’s how it’s seen by many citizens. Technically, you may even have some good points, but none can disguise that it’s individual states giving up power (in this case over banking regulation) to the EU. .

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, as far as I can see, all people seem to recall is "problems were predicted", and jump from that to "there are problems" in order to say "the current problems were predicted". The current issues with the euro weren't predicted, at least in any meaningful manner, as far as I can recall - entirely different ones were predicted, which people have something of a tendency to claim happened, but without offering much depth of evidence.

The one thing that wasn't very strongly referenced at the time of the euro's creation (again as far as I can recall) was the absence of a crisis mechanism, which has been the single most serious euro issue.

It’s quite simply wrong to try to claim the problems which have happened with the Euro were not forseen, and the very problem was that no “crisis mechanism” exists because the problems are structural. If you don’t remember the arguments surrounding this before the creation of the Euro, then you don’t remember them. But they were very much there and, in fact, one of the reasons the UK decided not to join the Euro.

Scofflaw wrote: »

In times of recession, there's always a "growing unease" with the political establishment. The EU is coming in for a greater share of it now because it plays a greater role, but whether the current downturn in sentiment is either permanent or politically motivational remains to be seen.

If the growth of unease was only seen in times of recession, then your point would be valid. However, the polls have shown us that unease was growing a long time before recession, and suggests that the problems are endemic and not temporary.

There is only so long a democracy can be kept in a club against its wishes, and if your judgment is that most of the citizens in the EU are happy with the direction of the EU, then the polls seem to contradict that view. It’s ironic that you accuse me of wishful thinking. While we are all capable of wishful thinking, when you think there is not unrest and unease amongst the citizens, it seems strange to accuse the polls indicating what the citizens are thinking of as wishful thinking.

Thomas_I

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

http://euobserver.com/defence/118226

Exerpt:

Interesting the use of the term civilian-military structures, I wonder could this mean a sort of department of defence of the EU? Anyway if anyone still has their head in the sand that Ireland is a neutral or non-aligned country, the creation of such an organisation would make our "neutrality" irrelevant, veto or not.


Opinions?

That all depends on the framework and I suppose that those joining these structures will do it on a voluntary basis and among them they will come rather from NATO members than from neutrals like Ireland.

poeticseraphim

The Building up of a New military power in the world community and a military power structure needs to be scrutinized.

I do not want the EU to become a military industry complex. It should be a limited budget and where money goes and who benefits should be monitored.

And do we really NEED to get involved in overseas conflicts??? Does te EU?

Is that what the European people want???

Currently in Europe it would be a budgetary luxury.

Also why do WE on a tiny Island NEED this??

Why does Spain??? Why does Italy??


Who is threatening us?

There is no reason for a tiny Island to be part of this.


How would these new military structures benefit us European people?

I don't like the idea of US becoming UNCLE SAM to to avoid relying on UNCLE SAM....can't we do things differently?

I never want it to be the case that Europe as a whole spends more on its military than healthcare.

And i do not want Europe to be a huge military aggressor or power quite frankly.

Europe has more pressing issues ...like the economy.

I wonder do some see this as a money making scheme ?

Who sells what to who in Europe military wise???
Whoever it is..however it's done......I bet it makes the US, Russia and China rich.

Scofflaw

poeticseraphim wrote:

The Building up of a New military power in the world community and a military power structure needs to be scrutinized.

I do not want the EU to become a military industry complex. It should be a limited budget and where money goes and who benefits should be monitored.

I don't think what's being proposed is "the building up of a new military power", but rather rationalisation and efficiencies/synergies - on the other hand, the intention of those is to make the European countries more militarily effective, the point of which is not, of course, solely to resist any potential aggressor, but to interfere abroad.

And on yet a further hand, there is the point that the Member States already interfere abroad, currently by way of NATO in operational terms, and therefore inevitably in concert with the US. So one could argue that an EU operational structure would permit more European intervention abroad by virtue of enabling European states to intervene independently, and therefore without having to tie themselves to US interests.

I use "intervention" deliberately here for more than its rhetorical value, because the characteristic intervention by the EU is fundamentally policing rather than military invasion, with a very large amount of soft (economic, legal, civilian) power being deployed relative to any hard power component - the characteristic NATO intervention, on the contrary, is very much a military one.

Given the differences between the Member States (we're not the only neutral, for example), I wouldn't see the EU simply stepping into Uncle Sam's shoes in order to avoid relying on Uncle Sam (and thereby defending Uncle Sam's interests by proxy). If the Member States were aiming for an intervention capability which follows along the lines of current characteristics, I would be cautiously supportive of that - and it's politicians, rather than generals, who start wars. It would, as you say, need tight oversight, and I'm not convinced that current levels of transparency regarding government actions in the EU are adequate.

Also why do WE on a tiny Island NEED this??

Why does Spain??? Why does Italy??


Who is threatening us?

There is no reason for a tiny Island to be part of this.

I think it's clear from the joint communiqué that this is not a primarily defensive capability:

The EU Member States should continue strengthening those force-enablers and force multipliers which grant the ability to deploy and sustain military actions over long distances and long periods and more balanced burden-sharing in the transatlantic community.

and

We share the view that providing support to regional organisations and local authorities to strengthen stability in ungoverned or fragile areas reinforces the security of EU citizens and interests.

As to why Italy or Spain might want this, I would have thought the answer was obvious - the Balkans and North Africa. From our own perspective, we don't really have geographical security issues of that kind, but that shouldn't preclude Ireland from supporting that capacity as needed by other Member States, as long as the capacity is used in a way that's consonant with our own principles of international relations.

cordially,
Scofflaw