Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

job3

sink wrote: »

Tbh this guy sounds like he was never a europhile, he's clearly a xenophobe with an agenda.

Are you talking about me?

ixtlan

IRLConor wrote: »

In reality there are two main types of scenario where we'd be called upon to help under this clause:

Actually there are many scenarios that don't involve wars but natural disasters.

We would of course expect our EU neighbours to come to our aid in the event of so called high impact low probability events, such as

hurricane-like storm... more likely with global warming
asteroid strike
and my scary favourite, tsunami caused by canary island volcano falling into the sea...
http://www.benfieldhrc.org/tsunamis/mega_tsunami_more.htm

If these things happened you can bet we would be crying out for solidarity.

Ix

Jimkel

Thats what the UN's for, we don't need to further legislate the need to help each other in case of natural disastor.

djpbarry

Jimkel wrote: »

Thats what the UN's for, we don't need to further legislate the need to help each other in case of natural disastor.

The US, China or Russia can block anything at UN level.

,8,1

Ireland should pull out of the internationalist, Communist-founded UN. Indeed all sovereign states which seek to remain that way should.

Belfast

,8,1 wrote: »

Ireland should pull out of the internationalist, Communist-founded UN. Indeed all sovereign states which seek to remain that way should.

Good idea

my response to mr Cowan being disappointed by the no Vote to Lisbon

Thirdfox

djpbarry wrote: »

The US, China or Russia can block anything at UN level.

France and UK have veto powers too as one of the big 5...

I do remember that a veto can be overturned by a 90%(?) delegation vote though - don't know why they haven't used it for the Israel resolutions before.

China and Russia use their vetoes very rarely (P.R. China using it 6 times compared to the US's 100+ in the last 30 years - quite a few times over the Israel issue).

djpbarry

Thirdfox wrote: »

France and UK have veto powers too as one of the big 5...

Yeah but I was just drawing attention to the fact that the non-EU members of the Security Council could veto proposals that were unanimously agreed upon at EU level.

ixtlan

Jimkel wrote: »

Thats what the UN's for, we don't need to further legislate the need to help each other in case of natural disaster.

This is a case of having your cake and eating it too. The no side would have us believe that the EU is an aspiring warmongering imperialist super-power which cares nothing for what Ireland thinks.

Yet, at the same time you are arguing that in the event of a disaster here, they will do everything in their power to help regardless of any legal requirement?

Actually I agree with that second part. However doesn't that give you pause about the first part?

Ix.

blanchdub

I trust much more EU diplomatic decisions than irish ones: Ireland is too
small & corrupt to voice their concern against some countries.
(i.e. illegal war in Irak, based on lies)

Elmo

blanchdub wrote: »

I trust much more EU diplomatic decisions than irish ones: Ireland is too
small & corrupt to voice their concern against some countries.
(i.e. illegal war in Irak, based on lies)

One of the bigger EU countries went to ware in Iraq :rolleyes: unlikely that the EU could have done anything to stop them.

I disagree with the EDA, the method of giving a seat to a Commissioner (for an unelected Representative their are few women commissioners) and I don't think any of the EU countries are any better than our political parties. If you think Ireland is corrupt then you should take a look at Italy. What would make a politician stop being corrupt?

I thought the Nice treaty was ill-conceived and badly drawn out and it seems to me that the elites now agree that the Nice Treaty doesn't work, I can't help but feeling that Lisbon won't be to helpful in the next 5 years.

Oh and historically the bigger EU powers haven't been all that good on the old diplomacy, WW1, WW2, The Cold War, The Falklands war, Afganistan etc etc.

P. Breathnach

Elmo wrote: »

... I thought the Nice treaty was ill-conceived and badly drawn out and it seems to me that the elites now agree that the Nice Treaty doesn't work, I can't help but feeling that Lisbon won't be to helpful in the next 5 years...

Do bear in mind that no to Lisbon defaults to yes to Nice.

Elmo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Do bear in mind that no to Lisbon defaults to yes to Nice.

Do bare in mind that I voted NO to nice and that I have no issue with nice since on 2 occassions the Irish people voted YES to nice through the second referendum on nice and the first referendum on Lisbon.

What I want to see from Europe is more Economic ties, something that should have begun in the 1970s for some strange reason we are closer to Boston than to Berlin and London has our hearts, not good for a small economy with a different currency to our main trading partners and a currency we have little control over, it would be better to be more economically aligned to the 15 other Eurozone countries IMO.

I would like to see discussion about Europe more open and that does mean more referendums across Europe where small and big countries are treated equally as sovereign indepenendent countries.

And finally that discussions on Treaties are openly discussed in the media when the start the discussions who knows what treaty they have in store next.

I have no problem remaining with Nice for the time being. But I do not want the European Defense Agency for me that is a fundamental problem.

ei.sdraob

Elmo wrote: »

I have no problem remaining with Nice for the time being. But I do not want the European Defense Agency for me that is a fundamental problem.

ever hear of the tipple lock?

and Ireland has some very specific conditions guaranteed since we are neutral

“It introduces a triple-lock mechanism in relation to any decisions regarding Ireland’s participation in these initiatives, similar to the triple lock we have for the deployment of Defence Forces personnel on peacekeeping operations overseas,”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0905/1224253908291.html



your fears are just that, and are not based on reality

im sure other members would be happy to clear up any misconseptions

Elmo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ever hear of the tipple lock?

and Ireland has some very specific conditions guaranteed since we are neutral

Sorry I didn't mention anything about neturaility I stated that I do not want Ireland or Europe to have or be part of a European Defense Agency (EDA).

I fundamentally disagree with the European Defense Agency.

Also I do not believe that the UN will have anything to do with this so called triple lock system it will be an internal Irish affair i.e. Cabinet agree and the 2 house of the Oireachtas agree.

The current triple lock is based on UN agreement as part of the "locking system" this new system by passes the UN AFAIK but I am unsure about that.

Either way I don't want the EDA to happen waste of time, money and energy would be better invested into Disaster Rescue missions (Giving proper equipment and training to the rescue services) and Health.

ei.sdraob

Elmo wrote: »

Sorry I didn't mention anything about neturaility I stated that I do not want Ireland or Europe to have or be part of a European Defense Agency (EDA).

I fundamentally disagree with the European Defense Agency.

Do you disagree with our soldiers being used in peacekeeping operations, like current Chad mission

Elmo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Do you disagree with our soldiers being used in peacekeeping operations, like current Chad mission

I believe there are questions about Chad but it is a UN peace keeping mission. I believe that there are question surrounding all military campaigns. Politicians can sit there and turn around and say yeah "send out the troupes in a hurry" but they forget they aren't putting their own lives on the line.

As I say fundamentally for me the EDA is not something that I want.

ei.sdraob

Elmo wrote: »

I believe there are questions about Chad but it is a UN peace keeping mission. I believe that there are question surrounding all military campaigns. Politicians can sit there and turn around and say yeah "send out the troupes in a hurry" but they forget they aren't putting their own lives on the line.

As I say fundamentally for me the EDA is not something that I want.

look im very concerned about neutrality myself

but im proud of the job our defense forces do in peacekeeping missions

Lisbon does not change that

the triple lock means we cant get dragged into things like Iraq war, which i feel very strongly about

Elmo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

look im very concerned about neutrality myself

but im proud of the job our defense forces do in peacekeeping missions

Lisbon does not change that

the triple lock means we cant get dragged into things like Iraq war, which i feel very strongly about

I am also very proud about Irish Peace keeping missions with the UN and I also understand that their is such a thing as the triple lock system.

However I do feel strongly about the EDA, I think money and responsiblity could be placed in other area other than Military operations. The EDA will act without Ireland and the UN, I don't want the EDA, I would worry about that amount of power which could be focused on better more pressing issues such as rescue, peace, health and other humanitarian projects. Nothing will ever make me believe that the EDA is a good thing.

ei.sdraob

Elmo wrote: »

The EDA will act without Ireland and the UN, I don't want the EDA.

they can do whatever they want, NATO acts without Ireland and UN already, nothing to do with us

Elmo wrote: »

I would worry about that amount of power which could be focused on better more pressing issues such as rescue, peace, health and other humanitarian projects. Nothing will ever make me believe that the EDA is a good thing.

and thats exactly the types of projects Ireland might get involved in

and do remember our forces had to make use of other nations resources to get to Chad, they don't have the equipment needed to do their peacekeeping job

Elmo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

they can do whatever they want, NATO acts without Ireland and UN already, nothing to do with us

and thats exactly the types of projects Ireland might get involved in

and do remember our forces had to make use of other nations resources to get to Chad, they don't have the equipment needed to do their peacekeeping job

We are not part of NATO and the UN has nothing to do with NATO.

I am sure that Ireland would get involved in such missions as I have mentioned but I want it limited to those missions. I am sure Ireland can get envolved in mission without the need for an EDA, co-operation with the UK, Iceland, Sweden and even the whole EU without a treaty setting up the European Defense Agency.

The EDA going into countries based on a premise that Ireland might disagree with does not look good for the EU and Ireland can't turn around and say you know we didn't want to go in there.

We need to have equipment for Air and Sea rescue, as an Island nation we should be to the fore of such rescues. The same goes for Navy patrol of smugglers. I don't not believe that the EDA has any interest in any of these things.

ei.sdraob

Elmo wrote: »

We are not part of NATO and the UN has nothing to do with NATO.

I am sure that Ireland would get involved in such missions as I have mentioned but I want it limited to those missions. I am sure Ireland can get envolved in mission without the need for an EDA, co-operation with the UK, Iceland, Sweden and even the whole EU without a treaty setting up the European Defense Agency.

The EDA going into countries based on a premise that Ireland might disagree with does not look good for the EU and Ireland can't turn around and say you know we didn't want to go in there.

We need to have equipment for Air and Sea rescue, as an Island nation we should be to the fore of such rescues. The same goes for Navy patrol of smugglers. I don't not believe that the EDA has any interest in any of these things.

the reason i mentioned NATO is that its an example of an organisation with European members that we have nothing to do about

if Ireland doesn't want to be in EDA then we can pull out like Denmark did

(All EU member states are eligible to join the EDA and to leave it)

you should really lookup what EDA does and read up on it, you are making a big deal out of something that EDA is not, and making your decision on Lisbon about something that is not what you think it is



their whole budget for 2009 is 30 million, that wouldnt even buy you a transport plane never mind be a replacement for NATO (which is what you think it is)

please do look up on the job/tasks of EDA and membership, all Ireland has to do is contribute a small amount yearly like 1 euro , Malta for example paid only €40,000 in 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Agency



there are other militrary institution within EU that have nothing to do with ireland and perform peacekeeping functions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps

the above have nothing to do with Ireland, tho they did help our forces in UN peacekeeping since we are too busy paying banks and public sector fat wages instead of providing equipment to our peace keepers

/

Elmo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the reason i mentioned NATO is that its an example of an organisation with European members that we have nothing to do about

if Ireland doesn't want to be in EDA then we can pull out like Denmark did

Why don't we just pull out now, save people like me having to worry about the EDA?

you should really lookup what EDA does and read up on it, you are making a big deal out of something that EDA is not, and making your decision on Lisbon about something that is not what you think it is

their whole budget for 2009 is 30 million, that wouldnt even buy you a transport plane never mind be a replacement for NATO (which is what you think it is)

please do look up on the job/tasks of EDA and membership, all Ireland has to do is contribute a small amount yearly like 1 euro , Malta for example paid only €40,000 in 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Agency

there are other militrary institution within EU that have nothing to do with ireland and perform peacekeeping functions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps

the above have nothing to do with Ireland, tho they did help our forces in UN peacekeeping since we are too busy paying banks and public sector fat wages instead of providing equipment to our peace keepers

Why are you linking me to Wikipedia?

Does the 30 million include the amount of Money that Ireland will have to spend to bring the Irish Army up to EU/EDA standards? as you point out we had to use other countries equipment in some our peace keeping missions.

The EDA is in the lisbon treaty it doesn't take into account the UN when applying the so called new triple locking system, the new systems for the EDA is based on agreement with in the Cabinet and the house of the Oirechtas.

I don't want the EDA at all regardless of how much it will cost the economy. It isn't an important function of the EU.

Peacekeeping can only be solidified through the UN.

And you want to suggest that I think it is a replacement for NATO as far as I am concerned NATO unfortunately is here to stay, a dinosaur of the cold war.

I totally understand that the EDA has nothing what so ever to do with NATO.

While I do agree with the tasks of the Peacekeepers, the Lisbon Treaty will not prevent the setting up of NAMA and will increase the number of paper pushing civil servants in the EU (However I believe that they will do both of these things with out the need for Lisbon.)

ei.sdraob

Elmo wrote: »

Why don't we just pull out now, save people like me having to worry about the EDA?

i dont know, the option is there and can be taken at any time

there is no need for EU military since; EU is not a country and most EU countries who wish are already in NATO, and some are neutral like us

Elmo wrote: »

Why are you linking me to Wikipedia?

you obviously dont know what you are talking about, hence why you should read up on EDA

Elmo wrote: »

Does the 30 million include the amount of Money that Ireland will have to spend to bring the Irish Army up to EU/EDA standards? as you point out we had to use other countries equipment in some our peace keeping missions.

if you read the article linked you would have seen that thats 30million spend by all EDA members, with Malta paying 40k

Elmo wrote: »

I don't want the EDA at all regardless of how much it will cost the economy. It isn't an important function of the EU.

one of the functions of EDA is to continue the decommissioning of the WEU. no it an important function of EU but I also think the Commission are not important, but the people seem to disagree....

Elmo wrote: »

Peacekeeping can only be solidified through the UN.

EDA has nothing to do with peacekeeping, but of course you havent bothered reading what EDA is and are jumping to conclusions

Elmo wrote: »

And you want to suggest that I think it is a replacement for NATO as far as I am concerned NATO unfortunately is here to stay, a dinosaur of the cold war.

I totally understand that the EDA has nothing what so ever to do with NATO.

id be as happy as you to see NATO gone, but they have nothing to do with us, and we cant go telling other countries what they can or can not do

Elmo wrote: »

While I do agree with the tasks of the Peacekeepers, the Lisbon Treaty will not prevent the setting up of NAMA and will increase the number of paper pushing civil servants in the EU (However I believe that they will do both of these things with out the need for Lisbon.)

What does NAMA have to do with Lisbon? we created this economic mess in the country > we deal with it, if anything ECB are not to happy with NAMA either and are warning against paying too much



Lisbon was gonna reduce the bureaucracy in the form of a smaller commission, but the "people have spoken" and now we get to keep these useless pricks

Elmo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you obviously dont know what you are talking about, hence why you should read up on EDA

Then you might want to link me to better info that Wiki.

if you read the article linked you would have seen that thats 30million spend by all EDA members, with Malta paying 40k

I understood that what I was saying what if Ireland has to maintain/upgrade its miltary to meet EU/EDA standards it won't just be about housekeeping it will mean investment, I don't see how Ireland could do it other wise.

EDA has nothing to do with peacekeeping, but of course you havent bothered reading what EDA is and are jumping to conclusions

Well why did you suggest it was? I was point out that if Ireland was to be part of a "defence" for then it should be used for either peacekeeping or rescue service which you suggest would be perhap one of the many thing Ireland would do in the EDA.

id be as happy as you to see NATO gone, but they have nothing to do with us, and we cant go telling other countries what they can or can not do

What does NAMA have to do with Lisbon? we created this economic mess in the country > we deal with it, if anything ECB are not to happy with NAMA either and are warning against paying too much

Lisbon was gonna reduce the bureaucracy in the form of a smaller commission, but the "people have spoken" and now we get to keep these useless pricks

Good to hear, won't happen unfortunately.

I know it has nothing to do with NAMA but you brought up how money should be spend, and I assumed that you meant NAMA in your reference to bailing out the banks.

I never asked, the government suggested the more silly things and went to Europe about them, hence my issue surrounding Unelected representives the majority are Party hacks and men, and unfortunately Mr. Cox gets to be our next commissioner :rolleyes:

As I siad I fundamentally disagree with the EDA, I think that all EU countries should be forced to upgrade their health, rescue and peacekeeping remits through the use of the UN not the EU. and that should be part of the next treaty.

Elmo

The above video is directly from the EDA.

ei.sdraob

Ireland is a contributor to initiatives and the ongoing work programme of the EDA, which includes identifying and overcoming shortfalls in capabilities development to increase the capacity of the Union to undertake appropriate peace support operations. These include initiatives in relation to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosives protection, CBRNE, communication and network systems and improved Counter-IED, improvised explosive devices, capability to enable military forces to operate safely.

the above is taken from here

http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-06-23.131.0

well worth a read especially in relation to Lisbon Treaty (q2)

Ireland’s contribution amounts to €700,000 over the three years.

lol thats all? i was looking at a house today thats worth more than that

---

Elmo wrote: »

The above video is directly from the EDA.

thanks for the video

yes their website would have more info

what im trying to say is that they are not NATO or anything like that, more like yet another bureaucratic think tank / research center focused on military technologies and defense planing

if for 700k/3 years we get access to new technologies and research/plans which might be used by our peace keepers thens its a damn good investment!

/

Elmo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thanks for the video

yes their website would have more info

what im trying to say is that they are not NATO or anything like that, more like yet another bureaucratic think tank / research center focused on military technologies and defense planing

if for 700k/3 years we get access to new technologies and research/plans which might be used by our peace keepers thens its a damn good investment!

I never mentioned they were like NATO to me they seem like representives of the Arms industry which is in the video very clearly.

While we will get this research do we really want research in how to best kill people? I understand that Ireland is a neutral country but surely this 700,000 could be invested with the United Nations for such research.

Just because you think something is good doesn't mean others agree with you, I don't agree with the EDA no matter how you put, there video has opened my eyes to how I really don't want any involvement with this organisation. TBH I am very annoyed that FF have already given them support over the last number of years.

Also just to clarify you want the EU to reduce the bureaucracy and red tape but you are happy for the EDA to be another bureaucratic think tank / research center focused on military technologies and defense planing. Or you say that NATO is a bureaucratic think tanks????

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hello,

Aren't we already members of the EDA?

http://www.eda.europa.eu/genericitem.aspx?area=Background&id=79

This has exactly what to do with Lisbon?

Elmo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hello,

Aren't we already members of the EDA?

http://www.eda.europa.eu/genericitem.aspx?area=Background&id=79

This has exactly what to do with Lisbon?

It enshrines it in a Treaty where it hasn't been before. Also I did point out already that I am not to impressed about Europe pressing ahead with this organisation.