The EU Reform Treaty

oscarBravo

PHB wrote: »

What I think the most interesting part of the treaty is the fact that it will beyond doubt end our neutrality.

Will it? See the post immediately above yours.

PHB wrote: »

We will be part of a common defense clause, which is about time to be honest, since we've effectively been part of one for 60 years.

Apart from not seeing anything in the Wikipedia article I linked that would suggest that (although I'm open to correction), the 26th Amendment explicitly rules out such a thing. Are you suggesting that the forthcoming Amendment will reverse that?

It's hard to imagine such a proposal being put forward, given that that was the difference between the failed and successful referenda last time out.

Offalycool

Considering we are going to land Irish soldiers in Chad on a peacekeeping campaign, where the opposition have sworn to declare war on any foreign troops who turn up; Who needs a common defense clause when you have peacekeepers!

Moriarty

imeddyhobbs' post deleted.

If you're going to post in politics in future, engage the brain first please.

lostexpectation

the politicians are already screwing up there chances, there another ff politician on there the other day ridiculing possible no voters, if no is such a stupid option why allow people to vote no? what the point of this referendum if they can concieve that theres reason to vote no.

the referndum should have multiple questions so we can have some say on its subparts

oscarBravo

lostexpectation wrote: »

...if no is such a stupid option why allow people to vote no?

With all due respect, that's a pretty stupid question.

lostexpectation wrote: »

what the point of this referendum if they can concieve that theres reason to vote no.

The point of the referendum has been clearly explained in great detail already in this very thread. Please re-read it.

lostexpectation wrote: »

the referndum should have multiple questions so we can have some say on its subparts

What, so we can ratify part of the Treaty?

Can we please keep this discussion sensible?

Scofflaw

PHB wrote: »

What I think the most interesting part of the treaty is the fact that it will beyond doubt end our neutrality. We will be part of a common defense clause, which is about time to be honest, since we've effectively been part of one for 60 years.

Not really. The clause in question creates an obligation of "rendering aid and assistance....without prejudice to the individual defence policies of certain member states".

There's a lot you can do to render aid and assistance to a fellow EU country under attack without breaching Ireland's neutrality and commitment to non-military solutions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PHB

But thats the absurd thing, it is basically a standard mutual defence agreement, and then tacked on at the end is this, without prejudice.... How in the world can this not prejudice it? It's like saying, 'If England gets attacked Ireland will join with them militarily, this however doesn't violate our neutrality'
Ireland has no committment to non-military solutions, hell we're in the Nordic battlegroup!

I have no issue with this, personally I welcome it, but it is in breach of our 'neutrality' and it'll be a key argument on the anti-treaty side.

jmayo

A couple of questions first off.
Does anyone know Eoin Harris's opinion on the treaty ?
If we do vote Yes first time of asking, will it mean bertie will be rewarded down the road with a nice plum EU job after leaving Dáil Eireann ?

People will vote for a variety of reasons and only half of them will have anything to do with what is actually written down in the treaty.

Manic Moran

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a lot you can do to render aid and assistance to a fellow EU country under attack without breaching Ireland's neutrality and commitment to non-military solutions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Like what? Sending them good luck cards? I can't think of any non-material assistance which meets the definition of 'All the means in their power.'

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

If that's not a mutual defense pact, I don't know what is. It's not a full alliance, so if Ireland doesn't want to join in on the German invasion of Dirk-dirkastan, or would prefer to stay out of the EU RRF's deployment to Krasnovia on a peace-enforcing mission they can.

NTM

turgon

heard someone on the radio say that this treaty was unique in that there were specific provisions that allowed the treaty to be changed at any point in the future without having to go through the ratification process.

According to the irish examiner on friday (dont know date), article 60 allows for the treaty to be changed at later occasions. Legal lingo and all that but its there.

Manic Moran wrote: »

If that's not a mutual defense pact, I don't know what is.
NTM

Well if you really dissect the sentence "the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power".

The Irish government cannot actually declare war without a referendum as the country is constitutionally neutral. Simple as. Such aid might be diplomatic such as sanctions, closing of airspace etc etc.

AngryHippie

does it mention rendition flights ?

Moriarty

turgon wrote: »

According to the irish examiner on friday (dont know date), article 60 allows for the treaty to be changed at later occasions. Legal lingo and all that but its there.

If you're going to say that, please specifically reference where in the treaty you're talking about.

turgon wrote: »

The Irish government cannot actually declare war without a referendum as the country is constitutionally neutral. Simple as. Such aid might be diplomatic such as sanctions, closing of airspace etc etc.

We're not neutral. The constitution doesn't say we're neutral. We are non-aligned.

Manic Moran

turgon wrote: »

the country is constitutionally neutral. Simple as.

Hear something enough times, and it becomes truth.

There may be something in the Defense Acts relating to the triple-lock, but I haven't found it yet. I'm still looking.

NTM

uptherebels

what id like to know is if the governments of france and the netherlands are planning to let the people decide wether to ratify the treaty or not this time, cause if im correct both governments were in favour of the constituition last time

Scofflaw

Manic Moran wrote: »

Like what? Sending them good luck cards? I can't think of any non-material assistance which meets the definition of 'All the means in their power.'

Hmm. A referendum is required before the Irish State has the power to declare war. Unless the referendum passes, the Irish State can assist only in non-military ways, because military force is not a "means within its power".

Manic Moran wrote: »

If that's not a mutual defense pact, I don't know what is. It's not a full alliance, so if Ireland doesn't want to join in on the German invasion of Dirk-dirkastan, or would prefer to stay out of the EU RRF's deployment to Krasnovia on a peace-enforcing mission they can.

They also have to stay out of a defensive war if the electorate decides not to allow the State to declare war.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manic Moran

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. A referendum is required before the Irish State has the power to declare war. Unless the referendum passes, the Irish State can assist only in non-military ways, because military force is not a "means within its power".

This is obviously something in legislation other than the Constitution, because the Constitution is silent on anyone other than Dail Eireann having a say. Art 28 3 1*. Please cite the reference I'm missing.

You will note that Ireland has in the past had absolutely no problem with sending combat forces around the world without bothering with any referenda and without declaring war.

They also have to stay out of a defensive war if the electorate decides not to allow the State to declare war.

See above.

NTM

dathi1

A couple of questions first off.
Does anyone know Eoin Harris's opinion on the treaty ?
If we do vote Yes first time of asking, will it mean bertie will be rewarded down the road with a nice plum EU job after leaving Dáil Eireann ?

anything that wipes out Irish sovernty would be favoured by Eoin Harris. He would also be a yes man puerly because the shinners are a no. He loves Bertie too.
Bertie said last month "that he wouldn't rule it out" (EU President) which in Bertie speak means yes. As with all EU bureaucrat posts the financial rewards far exceed anything to do with National sovernty and democratic mandates. These guys will sell their mothers. Proncias "Vote no to mastrict" (early 80s) De Rossa.. a case in point.

brianthebard

dathi1 wrote: »

anything that wipes out Irish sovernty would be favoured by Eoin Harris. He would also be a yes man puerly because the shinners are a no. He loves Bertie too.

Just to add, some people might think that dathi is being a bit OTT, but I've read a column from Harris stating how he voted in nearly every election and it was always so that SF would not benefit. regarding neutrality, while we aren't neutral like Switerland or Sweden, I think there should be a referendum to definitively decide what our status is before we go any further with the treaty. This sort of messy are we aren't we stuff will only get much worse if we enter into an agreement that would at some stage ask us to send troops to war. It could also change when different parties come to power, which would lead to more headaches for us and the EU.

PHB

You will note that Ireland has in the past had absolutely no problem with sending combat forces around the world without bothering with any referenda and without declaring war.

Indeed. I'm well open to correction here, but don't we currently have troops in Chad as part of an EU mission? Not much, like around 50.

I'm pretty sure the legality of what it requires to declare war is very very very vague, and that we can pretty much do whatever we want without declaring war.

Scofflaw

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is obviously something in legislation other than the Constitution, because the Constitution is silent on anyone other than Dail Eireann having a say. Art 28 3 1*. Please cite the reference I'm missing.

I beg your pardon - you are quite correct. Feh, that's what I get for relying on someone else's reading of the Constitution...

Rather more weakly, I will point out that an aggressive war could easily be challenged as unconstitutional (29.1, 29.2).

Manic Moran wrote: »

You will note that Ireland has in the past had absolutely no problem with sending combat forces around the world without bothering with any referenda and without declaring war.

True, but for peace-keeping missions you don't need to declare war, because you're not at war with any of the parties to the conflict, but trying to keep the peace between them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manic Moran

Scofflaw wrote: »

Rather more weakly, I will point out that an aggressive war could easily be challenged as unconstitutional (29.1, 29.2).

You could argue it's a case of "We'll send troops to defend Finland from the Russian invasion, but after Finland is successfully defended, we won't be involved in the counter-attack." The Syrians had such a problem in the 1991 war: They did not wish to be seen as attacking a brother Arab to help the Americans, so they had a reserve role in the Arab Corps: They'd help other brother Arab armies if needed (i.e. Egypt, Qatar, Saudi) but would not be at the invading edge, if you know what I mean.

Even at that, I wouldn't read 29.1 and 29.2 as being exclusive. "Comitted to the ideal" implies that it should be the first course of action, but I don't read that as saying that if they've tried diplomacy and it has failed, that military action would be definitely ruled out. (Eg: NATO attack on Serbia over Kosovo). See below.

True, but for peace-keeping missions you don't need to declare war, because you're not at war with any of the parties to the conflict, but trying to keep the peace between them.

Ireland tends to focus on UN operations, or at least, UN-approved ones. But UN ops tend to fall under one of three categories: Full-scale conflict, peace-enforcing, and peace-keeping. The UN distinguishes between them, on the basis that peace-keeping requires agreement for the UN's role and presence from all parties, but peace-enforceing does not.

So far, Ireland has refrained from participating in UN-approved warfare. (i.e. Korea, 1991 war). It has taken part in the rare peace-enforcing op, the obvious example being UMOC in the 1960s. The Katangans may or may not have noted that Ireland never declared war on them, but that didn't seem to have any effect on the overall hostile relationship going both ways. The vast majority of UN ops are peace-keeping, which is why the two terms "UN mission" and "peacekeeping mission" are often (incorrectly) used interchangably.

You can have quite a vicious fight without declaring war: Neither Argentina nor Britain delcared it in 1982, for example. It's more of a formality these days.

NTM

jmayo

Manic Moran wrote: »

You can have quite a vicious fight without declaring war: Neither Argentina nor Britain delcared it in 1982, for example. It's more of a formality these days.

NTM

US never declared war on North Vietnam and they managed quiet a shindig, more ordance dropped than in WWII.
So there is nothing stopping us invading anyone bar the lack of actual resources and manpower :rolleyes:

johnnyskeleton

baztard wrote: »

Given the way we voted no to the Nice treaty only to have another referendum on it two years later. Will Fianna Fail keep on having referendums until they get the result they want?
Will our experience with the that effect the way we vote?

I think the reality of these referendii is that express our love hate relationship with the EU. We hate the way we have little or no power in the EU, but we realise how good it is to be part of the EU.

I think very little of the Nice referendii was to do with the points made by either side; in the first vote people didn't understand enough about it; in the second they very much knew the consequences of voting no.

What does annoy me is that the no lobby will say that everything in it is bad, and the yes lobby that everything in it is good, to the point of absurdity. I remember in the 1st Nice referrendum there were some no voters who got so caught up in saying no they also wanted to vote no to abolishing the death penalty and to the international criminal court.

It's a pity we can't vote yes on the more money for schools and hospitals parts of the EU and no on the bits we don't like.

marco murphy

I'm a little amazed at the quietness of this topic on boards.
I'll reignite with a link to this video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE

Moriarty

Already being discussed here - that link has already been mentioned there too.