nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Lets clear up the Neutrality Issue (once and for all)

turgon

Im not trying to swing voters, Im just genuinely curious about this, and we all know how hard it is to get unbiased info on the treaty.

The article on defense (42 I think?) will state:

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

What exactly will these mean for Ireland? Can we ignore it altogether? If for example Spain is attacked by Morroco for some reason, us being compelled to give "aid" in any form, even if its just food, is taking sides, i.e. we are being more favorable to Spain.

Im just really curious about this, and I think it would be Fianna Fail's interest to clear it up.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Well you couldn't really say that the political climate nowadays is in anyway similar to that of the past. Plus, the Japanese did not seem to deterred by the US in December of 41!!

I see your point, and I agree with most of it. But I think at this time there is only one country that needs to be prevented from blind offensive, the US. I cant see any of the EU countries needing restraint.

At this time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Well you couldn't really say that the political climate nowadays is in anyway similar to that of the past. Plus, the Japanese did not seem to deterred by the US in December of 41!!

I see your point, and I agree with most of it. But I think at this time there is only one country that needs to be prevented from blind offensive, the US. I cant see any of the EU countries needing restraint.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

ixtlan, I fully see your point. But its based on apparent love of the military be some European powers. Why should they just get off their high and act mature. Why should every thing have to involve guns??

Multi-millennial habit? The fact that it only takes one side to start a war? The fact that you can't keep the peace with a hurley stick?

I appreciate that the argument "we need to be armed because they're armed" leads to a spreading arms race until the military budgets run up against the needs of the civilian economy. Unfortunately while that illustrates out the absurd and costly consequences of mistrust, it fails to deal with the reality of it.

As I said, I prefer to see multilateral control of forces, because it reduces their offensive possibilities through sheer difficulty of agreeing a target, without reducing the deterrent effect of a standing army.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

ixtlan, I fully see your point. But its based on apparent love of the military be some European powers. Why should they just get off their high and act mature. Why should every thing have to involve guns??

ixtlan

A few comments on this, bearing in mind that I am a strong yes person.

I cannot see any issue on neutrality, if we define it as where we send our troops.

The no side has some valid concerns about militarization of the EU, however I'd like to explain why this should not be grounds for a no vote.

Everyone wants the EU to respect our sovereignty. This is something that works both ways. For most of the EU countries, military alliances are part of what they are. Meaning that it is a core feature of how they define themselves.

We in Ireland do not want anyone telling us to join a military alliance. On the other hand we cannot therefore demand that other countries disarm and hand control of their military to the UN (a hobbyhorse of mine).

We could demand (and I expect we did) that the EU treaties should make no mention of military matters at all, but as I said for most countries this is very very important, especially for the Eastern countries close to Russia. Yes, they have NATO, but it's such an integral part of politics for them that they obviously want it reflected in the treaties that will dominate their laws.

So, out of respect for them we accepted a compromise. We accepted wording related to countries assisting and defending each other, plus a mention that countries should have a decent military capability, while they allowed clauses allowing us to opt out of everything military related, including defending other countries.

Europe is all about compromise. I see Lisbon respecting all of our viewpoints and not forcing an Irish point of view on everyone else.

Ix.

IRLConor

There was a short analysis piece done on the 6.1 news last night about the defence parts of the Lisbon Treaty. I thought it was pretty clear and digestible, it's worth a look.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0526/6news_av.html?2379568
Skip down to the bit that says: "Sean Whelan, Europe Editor, analyses the elements of the Lisbon Treaty that affect military matters"

The first part is mostly about the European Defence Agency and there are soundbites from pro- and anti- spokesmen about that.

Then there's an explanation of the conditions under which Irish troops would be deployed with other EU troops and how Ireland stands with respect to a mutual defence pact.

Ekancone

Even if this clause did affect our neutrality, I see no reason to believe that the EU would act as an 'agressor state' given its reputation so far.

Scofflaw

Monotype wrote: »

"All means of power" would suggest to me more that the UN. As for having so many countries to our defence - I don't think Ireland is worth attacking unless we're directly supporting a side in war.

Edit:

I just saw this in the treaty; are we bound by this? - I.e., are we signing up for this part?

Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.
Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military
capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development,
research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European
Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote
measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

I don't like the sound of "the objectives"...

That's the common defence policy - and no, we're not bound by it. Indeed, we're constitutionally prevented from joining it without a referendum:

Article 29.4.9 of Bunreacht wrote:

9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section where that common defence would include the State.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

So why do we need a change?

Depends...what change? We're in the Nordic 'battlegroup', and we're in Chad as part of EUFOR - an EU force under UN auspices.

slightly puzzled,
Scofflaw

Monotype

In an ideal world, I'd trust the governement and they'd trust me and give me the information instead of hiding from me and say that it's good for me.

turgon

Monotype wrote: »

I just saw this in the treaty; are we bound by this? - I.e., are we signing up for this part?
[/i]

I don't like the sound of "the objectives"...

Well you see in the ideal world you wouldn't have to ask that question. That is, Brian Cowen and our government would have ceased the marginalization warnings for maybe just a split second and actually talk about the treaty i.e. to ease some peoples fears.

It is because of this I dont know either. Neither side has made any attempt to clear it up whatsoever, and both sides should be actually ashamed of this. Best chance of finding out is Wikipedia > EU > Defence

brianthebard

Scofflaw wrote: »

We only join with other EU forces under the UN framework, where the UN has requested an EU force.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So why do we need a change?

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

peacekeeping is fine but we already do that within the framework of the UN, we shouldn't have to join another armed group to do it.

We only join with other EU forces under the UN framework, where the UN has requested an EU force.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Monotype

"All means of power" would suggest to me more that the UN. As for having so many countries to our defence - I don't think Ireland is worth attacking unless we're directly supporting a side in war.

Edit:

I just saw this in the treaty; are we bound by this? - I.e., are we signing up for this part?

Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union
for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute
to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together
establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common
security and defence policy.
Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military
capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development,
research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European
Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote
measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where
appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and
technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European
capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the
improvement of military capabilities.

I don't like the sound of "the objectives"...

brianthebard

sink wrote: »

I can completely see your point of view, I just don't share it. I would just like to see Ireland play a more prominent role in peacekeeping. Using our experience with the North to help others see past their differences. I think we would be better able to do that inside a some sort of European defence. The likelyhood of anyone ever attempting to invade us or any other EU country is slim so I don't see the risk of being allied with these countries.

peacekeeping is fine but we already do that within the framework of the UN, we shouldn't have to join another armed group to do it.

Scofflaw

Victor wrote: »

The Royal Marines accidentally invaded (armed, uninvited) Spain about 6 years ago. They thought it was Gibraltar.

Actually, I think the Moroccans "invaded" a small Spanish island a couple of years ago.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Victor

sink wrote: »

When was the last time you heard of a country in a western alliance being invaded?

The Royal Marines accidentally invaded (armed, uninvited) Spain about 6 years ago. They thought it was Gibraltar.

turgon

Yeah, your point has a lot of merit. I think however that maybe if we dispatched diplomatic missions, containing judges, civil servants etc, that we could do a lot of good. One thing though is that out peace keeping "cred" is partly because we are neutral, and other nations we are helping don't feel threatened.

sink

I can completely see your point of view, I just don't share it. I would just like to see Ireland play a more prominent role in peacekeeping. Using our experience with the North to help others see past their differences. I think we would be better able to do that inside a some sort of European defence. The likelyhood of anyone ever attempting to invade us or any other EU country is slim so I don't see the risk of being allied with these countries.

turgon

sink wrote: »

Poland & Belgium in WWII, Kuwait in the Gulf war. When was the last time you heard of a country in a western alliance being invaded?

Im not even convinced Poland was neutral, but I will continue as if it was.

One cannot consider Poland and Belgium on their own in isolation like this. One has to remember that these two countries were instrumental to Hitler when he was putting his foreign policy into action. He wanted Poland for Lebensraum, and Belgium to attack France, which he wanted to do to end the age old rivalry. Additionally, one could not claim that Belgium and Poland had cultures of neutrality - the two only appeared as neutral countries 20 years previously at the Paris Peace Conference, and the latter having only been created then. So to Hitler, a man alive since the 1880's this meant nothing.

Consider on the other hand Switzerland and Sweden, the first and second oldest neutral countries in the modern age respectively. Especially in the case of the former, neutrality has been apart of their culture (since the foundation of the Swiss Confederation). Also these two countries showed none of the slight bias present in other states in the 30's, as well as the fact that they were useful to Hitler in economic terms (banking in Switzerland and energy in Sweden). One final reason for not invading Switzerland (especially for all you would be world rulers) - the state claims to have at it disposal 2.2 million armed and deployed troops within 24 hours of an invasion - nearly 30% of the population.

I think Ireland should stay neutral, but not the kind of thing we have. I personally think the Swiss system is great and that Ireland should lean towards this. In fairness, who are we, a country of 4-5million people, to take sides?

As regards Lisbon (at last!!). I'm still not altogether convinced. I'm going to take on board what ye have said (Scofflaw & IRLConor). I will have to research this myself, as none of the YES side is taking the time to explain. Personally I feel that if they stopped endlessly claiming the NO side was distorting matters and made efforts to explain issues that actually worry me, they would be doing themselves a whole lot more of good.

sink

I'm not motivated by some childish dream of being a military superpower. The way I see a European defence force operating is much the same way I see the Irish defence forces operating now. Look at Chad as an example of where a unified well supplied, technologically advanced force would be better than the piecemeal effort that's happening currently. The force was delayed for months because they couldn't get the proper equipment such as helicopters. I mean what's the point in sending a few thousand our soldiers into harms way and in country larger than France without proper helicopters for transport? I don't expect the Irish taxpayer to foot the bill for the kind of equipment needed to take peacekeeping seriously that's why I believe a proper unified European military would be better.

sink

brianthebard wrote: »

I think we should have a referendum on Irish neutrality and decide whether or not we should actually be neutral. also sink, when was the last time you heard about a neutral country being invaded? It doesn't happen. Wanting to be part of a European military group is grand for ten year old boys who play with action man but if we are to be a mature society we should think about strengthening our neutral status, not weakening it cause the EU says so.

Poland & Belgium in WWII, Kuwait in the Gulf war. When was the last time you heard of a country in a western alliance being invaded?

brianthebard

I think we should have a referendum on Irish neutrality and decide whether or not we should actually be neutral. also sink, when was the last time you heard about a neutral country being invaded? It doesn't happen. Wanting to be part of a European military group is grand for ten year old boys who play with action man but if we are to be a mature society we should think about strengthening our neutral status, not weakening it cause the EU says so.

sink

I'm in complete agreement. If the Lisbon treaty is passed, if anybody attacks Ireland for what ever reason, we will have 24 countries will respond immediately and fight on our behalf. However if say Lithuania is invaded by Belarus, they can burn and we don't have to do a thing about it. Sending a few fire blankets will cover any obligation on our part. I think we should drop the neutrality issue once and for all.

We should not partake in any invasion of another country e.g. Iraq. But we should defend our European friends if they are attacked.

Gobán Saor

Am I the only one that thinks we should ditch this neutrality policy?

We are not required by the Constitution to be neutral - the word isn't even mentioned in the text of the Constitution. We don't take it seriously - we have never developed the military capability to defend ourselves against an aggressor. De facto we rely on other nations (including EU nations) to come to our assistance if we were attacked. But we insist on having no truck with military alliances of any sort? Why? Smacks of utter hypocracy to me.

It is only in recent times that we even acquired the capability to do long range air-sea search and rescue missions. Time and time again we relied on the British to send over a helicopter to give us a "dig-out." What a pathetic state of affairs for an independent nation.

Time to slaughter the sacred cow...

sink

I would like to point our the passage that garauntees our neutrality

RECALLING that the common security and defence policy of the Union does not prejudice
the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States;

http://www.iiea.com/images/managed/publications_attachments/Protocols_2008.pdf
Page 97

IRLConor

Victor wrote: »

And if Iraq attacks prospective member Turkey?

Or Albania attacks prospective member Macedonia*?

* Screw you Greece.

Well, they're prospective members, so they're on their own.

In future if they become members, well, Scofflaw explained that best above.

Victor

IRLConor wrote: »

In that particular case I'd see a UN Security council decision in double-quick time. That would open the possibility of the Irish government and the Dáil agreeing to commit Irish troops to that conflict.

And if Iraq attacks prospective member Turkey?

Or Albania attacks prospective member Macedonia*?

* Screw you Greece.

Scofflaw

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

That article is separate from the 'common defence' provisions, which, as IRLConor points out, we would need a constitutional amendment to take part in, because the Nice amendment inserted a bar on joining any 'common defence' provisions of the EU treaties.

turgon wrote:

What exactly will these mean for Ireland? Can we ignore it altogether? If for example Spain is attacked by Morroco for some reason, us being compelled to give "aid" in any form, even if its just food, is taking sides, i.e. we are being more favorable to Spain.

We can't ignore it, but it doesn't compel us into any specific course of action. You are correct that if, as you say, Morocco attacked Spain, we would be obliged to give some form of aid to Spain - within the terms of our defence and security policy. The clause "this shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States" is there specifically to protect the neutrality of the EU's neutral states, and means we cannot be obliged to render military assistance.

The question is - what assistance can we provide? The answer is relatively little, because neutral countries are generally regarded as having a duty of impartiality:

"It has already been stated above that impartiality excludes such assistance and succour to one of the belligerents as is detrimental to the other, and, further, such injuries to one of the belligerents as benefit the other, and that it includes active measures on the part of the neutral for the purpose of preventing belligerents from making use of neutral territories and neutral resources for their military and naval purposes …"

That would seem to suggest that our aid would be limited by our policy of neutrality to only those forms of aid that would not be "detrimental" to Morocco. Classically, we might assist in providing refugee camps (particularly outside the borders of Spain) or accepting refugees into Ireland.

I've seen this sort of limited help referred to as if we signed the Treaty with reservations. We did. We reserved the right to preserve our military neutrality - and that reservation is explicitly recognised in the Treaty, as it has been in previous treaties.

We are not now, and never have been, politically neutral. We are not involved in any system of military alliances, but we were politically on the Allied side in WW2, and the Western side in the Cold War.

cordially,
Scofflaw

IRLConor

turgon wrote: »

What exactly will these mean for Ireland? Can we ignore it altogether?

Well, my reading of the proposed 28th Amendment opts us out of the common defence provisions of 1.49 of the Lisbon Treaty which inserts the wording you quoted.

To get a definitive decision you need to talk to a law-talking-guy (preferably one who specialises in constitutional law).

turgon wrote: »

If for example Spain is attacked by Morroco for some reason, us being compelled to give "aid" in any form, even if its just food, is taking sides, i.e. we are being more favorable to Spain.

In that particular case I'd see a UN Security council decision in double-quick time. That would open the possibility of the Irish government and the Dáil agreeing to commit Irish troops to that conflict.

turgon wrote: »

I think it would be Fianna Fail's interest to clear it up.

+1, and not just FF. All the Yes parties would be better served by explaining their interpretation of this, particularly because they constitute all the parties likely to ever be in government.