Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

Plotician

PROPOSED LEGISLATION requiring Dáil approval for Irish participation in European Defence Agency (EDA) operations will be debated soon after October 2nd, subject to a Yes vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.

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

You can pretty much expect the legislation to be approved, and i suspect ongoing support for the EDA will result.

ei.sdraob

Elmo wrote: »

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????

peacekeeping sometimes requires killing and defending yourself and civilians, or having the technology to detect traps or mines


you cant send our soldiers out there to performs jobs for the UN while giving them ww1 rifles or other outdated equipment, they already had to rely on others to even get to their current deployment in Chad


on one hand you want them to do their job on the other hand you are bickering over 700k (that wouldn't even buy am armored jeep) that was spend on research that could and does make it easier for our forces to perform their UN mandate, bleh why am i arguing, you are trying to make a big deal out of something that is not, the figures are there for everyone to see


read the link to the Dail debate that i linked to, the minister explains it much better than i do

to quote the minister

Ireland has only engaged in one EDA project, the force protection project. It is about developing communications systems, body armour, sensors and so forth to protect our troops when they go into these dangerous environments.

there from the horses mouth, is that 700k not a good investment if it saves the lives of our soldiers in the field?



i cant believe that you would try to twist Irish involvement in the EDA into something that its not, you have demonstrated time and time again unwillingness to read up on them, and are jumping to conclusions


i presented you with facts and figures, you presented us with speculation not grounded in anything

sigh

please do read the linked page it'll clear up things for you

and yes i do expect an answer to the above question

Elmo

Plotician wrote: »

PROPOSED LEGISLATION requiring Dáil approval for Irish participation in European Defence Agency (EDA) operations will be debated soon after October 2nd, subject to a Yes vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.

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

You can pretty much expect the legislation to be approved, and i suspect ongoing support for the EDA will result.

This kind of thing leads me to conclusions. :rolleyes:

ei.sdraob you continually bring up NATO when I never even mentioned them and I feel at time you miss represented my views and your own at times.

you cant send our soldiers out there to performs jobs for the UN while giving them ww1 rifles or other outdated equipment, they already had to rely on others to even get to their current deployment in Chad

And is the EU going to give us all of this equipment? or should the UN? I mean we do have to update or equipment at some stage and the EDA can help to acquire such weapons. I would rather all Peacekeeping missions go through the UN and that we work with the UN on all military/peacekeeping issue. Someone will have to pay something, why should I feel the need to piggy back on Europe as a neutral nation.

there from the horses mouth, is that 700k not a good investment if it saves the lives of our soldiers in the field?

Have their been many deaths of Irish soldiers since their involvement in Chad? I understand that they have to have equipment for Peacekeeping missions. What about the lives of the people they are sent to protect? It isn't about the money.

I am sorry to have to tell you that I completely disagree with the EDA even in its current format, and as for pointing out the Irish government, and that brilliant orator Willie O'Dea, having signed up to the EDA long before the Lisbon Treaty. I don't really see the need to enshrine this organisations for the Weapons Industry (look at the EDAs video) in an EU treaty. I read the link.

Plotician

I would say Elmo is quite within his rights to have concerns about the EDA. Reading their background literature so much is open to interpretation it's hard to determine the core long term objectives of the agency.

Much simpler would be for Ireland to simply purchase what it needs for its peace-keeping troops independently.

In other words the EDA is'nt the only source for bullet proof vests and the like.

The definition of neutrality is definitely getting twisted in all these shenannigans.

K-9

Plotician wrote: »

The definition of neutrality is definitely getting twisted in all these shenannigans.

And again, as in so many issues on Lisbon, that has nothing to do with the EU.

We have no clear policy on Neutrality.

ei.sdraob

Plotician wrote: »

I would say Elmo is quite within his rights to have concerns about the EDA. Reading their background literature so much is open to interpretation it's hard to determine the core long term objectives of the agency.

Much simpler would be for Ireland to simply purchase what it needs for its peace-keeping troops independently.

In other words the EDA is'nt the only source for bullet proof vests and the like.

The definition of neutrality is definitely getting twisted in all these shenannigans.

of course he is within his rights

but as the minister said in the linked Dail debate excerpt

that 700k spend on a single EDA research project by Ireland in last 3 years

goes along way in protecting our forces and to quote his own words "a good investment"

Plotician

6% of voters had concerns about neutrality. The EU built in legal assurances to address these concerns. Neutrality is a key issue in the treaty, and hence in the EU picture as a whole.

As such it is appropriate to have a view on whether Irish neutrality is being protected or not.

Plotician

ei.sdraob wrote: »

of course he is within his rights

but as the minister said in the linked Dail debate excerpt

that 700k spend on a single EDA research project by Ireland in last 3 years

goes along way in protecting our forces and to quote his own words "a good investment"

Just because a minister says it....
(remember electronic voting machines?)

ei.sdraob

Elmo wrote: »

And is the EU going to give us all of this equipment? or should the UN? I mean we do have to update or equipment at some stage and the EDA can help to acquire such weapons. I would rather all Peacekeeping missions go through the UN and that we work with the UN on all military/peacekeeping issue. Someone will have to pay something, why should I feel the need to piggy back on Europe as a neutral nation.

The EU does provide us with help, see article linked below paragraph, UN has no defense budget last i checked
its up to member states participating in peacekeeping to organize own logistics

700K spent by Ireland on bulletproof vest research with the EDA, wouldn't even get one unit and equipment on a transport to Chad

Elmo wrote: »

Have their been many deaths of Irish soldiers since their involvement in Chad? I understand that they have to have equipment for Peacekeeping missions. What about the lives of the people they are sent to protect? It isn't about the money.

How can they protect the lifes of others if their equipment is outdated? that 700k in research on bulletproof vests could have gone on saving or have already saved lives

Irish troops in Chad 'at mercy' of other forces for transport

A highly experienced Army logistics expert has criticised the total lack of any Irish transport aircraft available for the deployment of troops within Chad, calling such a situation "neither ideal nor desirable".

Comdt Garry McKeon, a well-regarded officer who has been involved in planning and carrying out the initial deployment of Irish troops to both Liberia and Chad, has highlighted the lack of a tactical transport aircraft to move troops and light equipment within Chad.

Writing in the Defence Forces magazine An Cosantoir, Comdt McKeon said in the deployment of personnel, baggage and light equipment "we were totally at the mercy" of other forces for airlift and medevac capacity.

Elmo wrote: »

I don't really see the need to enshrine this organisations for the Weapons Industry (look at the EDAs video) in an EU treaty. I read the link.

whether its enshrined or not Ireland and any other country can pull out of the EDA at any time, and they probably should, but thats a matter that can be done with our without Lisbon, Lisbon doesn't commit us to the EDA or change anything about how it works

once again you are making a big deal out of Irish involvement in EDA, which to date involved nothing more than research on bulletproof vests, well jebus i was recently involved in 300k research into RFID, does that mean i will be soon implanting all NOOoooers with microchips



oh and if you are so anti military, then how would you feel at the video on the front page on Declan Ganley's company site (on rhs) > http://www.rivada.com/7130879/index.htm

some of the money that was spend by Ganley on the No campaign probably came from funds raised by selling equipment to US military for use in Iraq... think about that next time you see a Libertas poster

....

ei.sdraob

Plotician wrote: »

6% of voters had concerns about neutrality. The EU built in legal assurances to address these concerns. Neutrality is a key issue in the treaty, and hence in the EU picture as a whole.

As such it is appropriate to have a view on whether Irish neutrality is being protected or not.

Neutrality of Ireland is guaranteed to be respected

read this > http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055617733

The Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. It will be for Member States - including Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality - to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory.

Plotician wrote: »

Just because a minister says it....
(remember electronic voting machines?)

you are comparing 700k single research project that can save lives

to dozens of millions wasted on e-voting

clutching at straws are we?

Plotician

Regarding the EDA and according to the minister....

The Government must be satisfied that Irish participation would enhance the capabilities of UN mandated missions in peacekeeping, conflict prevention or strengthening of international security.

Give me the absolute meaning behind 'conflict prevention or strengthening of international security' and help me understand what our looming involvement with the EDA really means.

ei.sdraob

Plotician wrote: »

Give me the absolute meaning behind 'conflict prevention or strengthening of international security'

peacekeeping missions like Chad

Plotician wrote: »

and help me understand what our looming involvement with the EDA really means.

possible research into things like bulletproof vests

Plotician

How do you justify that answer when the EDAs own site states its objectives are:

• to work for a more comprehensive and systematic approach to defining and meeting the capability needs of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP);
• to promote European defence-relevant R&T, as vital both to a healthy defence technological and industrial base and to defining and satisfying future capability requirements. This will involve pursuing collaborative use of national defence R&T funds, in the context of a European Defence R&T Strategy which identifies priorities;
• to promote European cooperation on defence equipment, both to contribute to defence capabilities and as a catalyst for further restructuring the European defence industry;
• to work, in close cooperation with the Commission, on steps towards an internationally competitive market for defence equipment in Europe.

ei.sdraob

Plotician wrote: »

help me understand what our looming involvement with the EDA really means.

Plotician wrote: »

How do you justify that answer when the EDAs own site states its objectives are:

• to work for a more comprehensive and systematic approach to defining and meeting the capability needs of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP);
• to promote European defence-relevant R&T, as vital both to a healthy defence technological and industrial base and to defining and satisfying future capability requirements. This will involve pursuing collaborative use of national defence R&T funds, in the context of a European Defence R&T Strategy which identifies priorities;
• to promote European cooperation on defence equipment, both to contribute to defence capabilities and as a catalyst for further restructuring the European defence industry;
• to work, in close cooperation with the Commission, on steps towards an internationally competitive market for defence equipment in Europe.

Ireland has only opted to spend 700k in last 3 years on the highlighted bits above (a single research project on bulletproof vests)

since all members can pick and choose their level of involvement (if any)

we dont have to get involved with all of the aims of EDA and can completely pull out of EDA like Denmark for that matter

Plotician

That's all true, but i guess the question is why get involved with them in the first place?

I tend to stand with Elmo on this one, more as a point of principle than anything else. I feel strongly about irelands perceived neutrality. It took hundreds of years to establish international trust and it could be lost in a blink.

An Irish passport had, and has, an associated history with it. That is one of our areas of strength on a global basis. I am concerned that it will be abused by the EU and it won't be long before its value is erased.

ei.sdraob

Plotician wrote: »

I tend to stand with Elmo on this one, more as a point of principle than anything else. I feel strongly about irelands perceived neutrality. It took hundreds of years to establish international trust and it could be lost in a blink.

An Irish passport had, and has, an associated history with it. That is one of our areas of strength on a global basis. I am concerned that it will be abused by the EU and it won't be long before its value is erased.

FF minister decided its a good idea, myself i feel more like > meh whats the problem, its only money being spend on research that can save lives


then again same FF government decided to allow planes to land in Shannon, so there goes our neutrality already :mad: if you are worried about "principle" then drive down to Shannon and protest there, that imho does alot of harm to our neutrality


if you are concerned about EU abusing Ireland, then name one incident in since we joined in 1973 when something like that occurred? The EU's record towards Ireland is quite solid in past decades and our neutrality and peculiarities like abortion have always been respected

Plotician wrote: »

That's all true, but i guess the question is why get involved with them in the first place?

the minister is asked the same question in the Dail debate I linked to earlier, im not a minister and dont speak for them, if anything im sick of FF and be happy to see their back

but Lisbon wont accomplish that, if you want to bring down the current government put more pressure on the Greens

Plotician

I'm not fussed about bringing FF down - they were voted in, yep they've cocked up, but let them run their course.

Also agree about shannon, but that's not an EU thing - more to do with our relationship with the US.

The EU risk:

Irelands global history, and the 'success' of the NI peace process have been quoted by the government as one of the strengths we can bring to the EU. It is perceived that we can act as conflict negotiators when problems arise, and whilst this is true it is hard to see how we will be viewed as impartial if we are there representing the EU.

There will be vested interests and european agendas, and that goodwill that generally welcomes us could easily be undermined.

All hypothetical arguably, but still a real concern imo.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Plotician wrote: »

I'm not fussed about bringing FF down - they were voted in, yep they've cocked up, but let them run their course.

Also agree about shannon, but that's not an EU thing - more to do with our relationship with the US.

The EU risk:

Irelands global history, and the 'success' of the NI peace process have been quoted by the government as one of the strengths we can bring to the EU. It is perceived that we can act as conflict negotiators when problems arise, and whilst this is true it is hard to see how we will be viewed as impartial if we are there representing the EU.

There will be vested interests and european agendas, and that goodwill that generally welcomes us could easily be undermined.

All hypothetical arguably, but still a real concern imo.

So membership of the EU removes one of the strengths we could bring to the EU?

Err...

Plotician

That strength has the potential to be short-lived.

A legal assurance that we will only be involved in peace-keeping activities, ie: provision of peace-keeping troops only, is the only way to protect our perceived neutrality.

Involvement in military matters beyond that is not neutrality.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Plotician wrote: »

That strength has the potential to be short-lived.

A legal assurance that we will only be involved in peace-keeping activities, ie: provision of peace-keeping troops only, is the only way to protect our perceived neutrality.

Involvement in military matters beyond that is not neutrality.

The triple-lock is not changing under Lisbon you know.

Plotician

I'm on the lines that any participation in permanent structured co-operation or the EDA will erode our neutrality.

i don't care how its avoided, just that it is.

Putting legal arrangements in place after the referendum to enable participation (even if based on certain criteria) provides a doorway for involvement.

To me that suggests a threat to neutrality.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Plotician wrote: »

I'm on the lines that any participation in permanent structured co-operation or the EDA will erode our neutrality.

i don't care how its avoided, just that it is.

Putting legal arrangements in place after the referendum to enable participation (even if based on certain criteria) provides a doorway for involvement.

To me that suggests a threat to neutrality.

Well there's only so much soothing of paranoia you can do I suppose...

Plotician

I anticipate a 'yes' result, and time will tell!

and btw, that answer brought to mind Bertie telling the 'doom-mongerers' to go kill themselves when they were predicting a recession.

K-9

WE need to define our Neutrality for the EU to respect.

Again, a Non Lisbon issue.

Elmo

I was just thinking about this EDA organisation and the other countries involved surely they get to use the EDA for their own means for example the UK could use the EDAs services for their "war on terror", however I don't think the EDA co-insides with the Iraq War but I am assuming as a member of the EDA the UK could have used their services for the Iraq war should they have need them in the same way as we can use these same services for "peacekeeping".

WE need to define our Neutrality for the EU to respect.

Again, a Non Lisbon issue.

This would be helpful for the next treaty but it would have been helpful if the Minister in charge had understood the full implications of aligning Ireland to the EDA in terms of Irish Neutrality in the EU. I personally think that FF/FG make a mockery of our Neutrality in the EU. I think the EU countries can have military arrangements outside the EU, Ireland does not have to be part of these arrangements.

I do believe that it is more of an issue on the Lisbon treat than lets say "Jobs for Ireland", "Ireland at the heart of Europe", "Minimum wage will be 1.84 after Lisbon" and other such nonsense coming from the political organisations.

Elmo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Well there's only so much soothing of paranoia you can do I suppose...

And the EDA really isn't going to smooth anyone paranoia. (And I amn't talking about the ending of Irish Neutrality).

neantog

Vote yes in the Lisbon Referendum to promote destructive free-market capitalism throughout the EU.

Vote yes for the erosion of fairness in society.

Vote yes for the erosion of democracy.

Vote yes to show your support for incompetent, unrepresentative government, in Ireland, in Brussels, and throughout the European Union.

Vote NO to promote a fair society, and to extend democracy.

Vote NO on behalf of the millions of people throughout the European Union who have been denied the democratic right to vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

Let the government hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty every year for the next ten years, and vote NO every single time. The debate surrounding every re-run of the referendum would be valuable in itself in politically educating the population.

Elmo

neantog wrote: »

Let the government hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty every year for the next ten years, and vote NO every single time. The debate surrounding every re-run of the referendum would be valuable in itself in politically educating the population.

It's a bit tiresome at this stage. But I would like to see a 3rd vote, just to prove that this is a waste of time.

meglome

Elmo wrote: »

I was just thinking about this EDA organisation and the other countries involved surely they get to use the EDA for their own means for example the UK could use the EDAs services for their "war on terror", however I don't think the EDA co-insides with the Iraq War but I am assuming as a member of the EDA the UK could have used their services for the Iraq war should they have need them in the same way as we can use these same services for "peacekeeping".

This would be helpful for the next treaty but it would have been helpful if the Minister in charge had understood the full implications of aligning Ireland to the EDA in terms of Irish Neutrality in the EU. I personally think that FF/FG make a mockery of our Neutrality in the EU. I think the EU countries can have military arrangements outside the EU, Ireland does not have to be part of these arrangements.

I do believe that it is more of an issue on the Lisbon treat than lets say "Jobs for Ireland", "Ireland at the heart of Europe", "Minimum wage will be 1.84 after Lisbon" and other such nonsense coming from the political organisations.

The EDA can't do anything without all EU states agreeing.

meglome

neantog wrote: »

Vote yes in the Lisbon Referendum to promote destructive free-market capitalism throughout the EU.

Vote yes for the erosion of fairness in society.

Vote yes for the erosion of democracy.

Vote yes to show your support for incompetent, unrepresentative government, in Ireland, in Brussels, and throughout the European Union.

Vote NO to promote a fair society, and to extend democracy.

Vote NO on behalf of the millions of people throughout the European Union who have been denied the democratic right to vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

Let the government hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty every year for the next ten years, and vote NO every single time. The debate surrounding every re-run of the referendum would be valuable in itself in politically educating the population.

Can we stop with the campaign slogan bull****. It's not even accurate.