New EU military move shoots down Irish neutrality

kamobe

Well, how long ago did we vote "YES"????

Article here.

The far-reaching report calls for the end of veto rights to block military operations and the creation of new mutual defence and "solidarity" clauses.


In a long, detailed series of recommendations, it also demands the creation of a new EU armaments agency and for military research to be funded by the Union.

JustHalf

Where in the constitution does it say we are a neutral country?

Typedef

Where in the constitution does it say we are a neutral country?

Ah I see, so this negates the transparent pro-Federalist argument, that Ireland would never have to submit to a Federal European Army, no wait I meant the other transparent argument that alluded to Europe not becoming a military superpower to rival the United States.

The sickening part of the pro-Federal argument, is that it is only as transparent as it needs to be to iterate and abrogate nations, incrementally into a United States of Europe. The vaunted but, not enivitable United State of Europe that some Federalists have the decency to admit is the goal of the EU and others, deny in perpetuity, denied, derided or simply laughed at as the goal of European Integration until it is time to vote yet again for yet another measure that political platitudes mere years earlier from politicians had said would never come to pass.

Thanks for proving that point JustHalf.
The Federalist's argument on this front is quite delibrately incoherent and misleading, because if honesty were used, the Union could not be forged.

In answer to your question, Ireland is not, has never been and will never be neutral, much less Constitutionally obliged to be, all that has to take place is a Referendum (though how many of those will be required to coerce Irish acquiecence is unclear) to join a quote "Common Defence" on Europe.

See a "Rapid Reaction Force" is primarily an offencive force, remember the Rapid Reaction Force, the one Ireland was going to participate in whether or not the 'second' Nice Referendum passed?

Oh god why , oh why, do people post selected tracts from newspaper articles , when if they quoted the article in it's entire, a markedly different view could be seen.
and especially in this case when it relates to the E.U, as it only gets types blood, boiling, and I fear for his blood pressure

The full article also states regarding John Gormley, who is on the committee in question:

He did succeed in inserting a phrase in the text explicitly stating that the EU is not a military alliance. Nevertheless, he contends that the overall tone and the proposals it contains are not justified by the deeply split working group.

and:

More controversially, a mutual defence clause is also proposed, but one that not all member states would be forced to sign. Supporters of the plan argue that this fig leaf does not breach the concept of neutrality, though this was strongly rejected by the non-aligned representatives.

so even if this highly divided committee's work isn't watered down(which , given it's in fighting, it most likely will be) any changes proposed would have to be put to a referendum here.

That referendum would most likely fail, although maybe not...
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Thanks for proving that point JustHalf.
The Federalist's argument on this front is quite delibrately incoherent and misleading, because if honesty were used, the Union could not be forged.

I see, and you can, of course, show that JustHalf's question is, indeed, the basis of the entire "Fereralist's argument"?

Indeed, I'd love to know how a single question, without any significant surrounding context proves anything? For someone with such a wide grasp of vocabulary, it staggers me at times how you can mis-use words such as "proof" with frightening regularity. I refuse to put it down to your ignorance of the meaning, so I assume it must be deliberate disingenuity on your part. Hardly conducive to a strong argument.

Incidentally, but personalising there, you are also implying that there is only one argument being fronted. I assume, again, that you can actually show this, and that it isnt just more rhetoric on your part?

See a "Rapid Reaction Force" is primarily an offencive force, remember the Rapid Reaction Force, the one Ireland was going to participate in whether or not the 'second' Nice Referendum passed?

Primarily offensive? And you make this out by the what basis? Its track history - oh, no, wait, it doesnt exist yet. Perhaps its name.....yeah....no....REACTION, implying that it is reacting to actions by someone else...which is normally what defense is considered to be. Hmm...nope - all out of ideas. So - care to enlighten me?

AS for the report itself...well, I, not subscribing to the Indo site just to read the link, so I'll just address the bit which was quoted. Its a report. It makes recommendations. The reporter's choice of words such as "demands" is about as disingenuous as Typedef's response.

I can write a far-reaching report which "demands" that the EU donate 150% of its annual income to my personal bank account. Impact on the real world? Absolutely nothing. This article is discussing a report. Its impact on the real world? Nothing.

Now, if the EU starts actually doing something about bringing this report's recommendations into law, then there might be something to be worried about, and I would be one of the first people opposing it. For now, though, its a report. So what?

jc

GavinS

If anyone here doubts the intentions of European leaders for building a European Army, and the future defence of Europe then i suggest they read the following articles.

Closer links with NATO

Javier Solana and what Turkey needs to do

Giles Merrit on declining populations and defence


_______________

Gavinsblog.com