Ireland in a Federal Europe and the end of National Vetoes

conorhal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119383614#Comment_119383614

Who's talking about conscription, other than you that is? Typical strawmanning.

ELM327

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119383712#Comment_119383712

Its not a strawman, it's a reaction to you implying people will be forced to be sent to war.

conorhal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119383720#Comment_119383720

Where do you think abandoning neutrality and entering a mutual defence pact while surrendering your veto on sovereign control over foreign and security policy (as per Mr Scholz recommendation) to a bunch of militaristic hawks gets you other than being forced into other people’s wars?

I know independent critical thinking is a bit of a struggle for your average Irishman these days, since we can’t seem to make a decision without first asking mummy EU and daddy NATO what it thinks first, but clearly joined up thinking isn't your strong suit.

johnnyskeleton

The premise of Schotz' comments are faulty.

For there to be a veto on foreign policy it implies that one country can hold the EU back.

Lets say, for instance, that following a series of events in Iceland, there were growing calls for the EU to invade it. But say Malta is against the proposal. If Malta had a veto, it would mean that France, Germany etc would be powerless to invade. But that is not the case.

Instead, what would happen is that the EU countries other than Malta would coordinate together and would do so under another name, such as the "coalition of the willing" was used when there was no NATO unanimity.

Likewise, if it is a diplomatic as opposed to military measure, the difference between the whole EU taking measures as one vs all EU memberstates less Malta taking those same measures individually is marginal. The EU is not powerful in its own right, but as a sum of its parts.

Of course, in reality what Scholtz is really complaining about is a lack of unanimous sanctions where one EU country blocks it. This is tricky where it could threaten the single market. However, we have seen that through the EUs process of consensus sanctions can still be imposed.

The reality too is that different EU memberstates have very different political objectives. Ireland is much more US focussed than France. France wants to be an international military power whereas Germany is content to have the most minimal military for defence only. Sweden enjoys its position as diplomatically and militarily neutral. Italy doesnt care about Eastern Europes problems, and Poland doesnt care about the mediterranian's problems.

Whenever something comes along that has near unanimity in the EU its great. But equally where there is no unanimity it isnt because we lack the mechanisms for it, but because there are genuinely different strategic interests at play.

So in summary its great where things are - some or all EU memberstates can act together when it suits them. But they cant force reluctant or opposed member states to join them. Instead, soft power influence must be used to try to achieve greater unanimity, but it wont always be the case.

I.e. we have a good system that does not need to be changed.

Mr. Karate II

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058255067/ireland-in-a-federal-europe-and-the-end-of-national-vetoes

"BERLIN: The European Union can no longer afford to keep national vetoes when deciding on European Union foreign and security policy"

Remember kids. Trump was the dictator. This is Democracy at it's finest.