Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Yes to Lisbon = Goodbye Constitutional Republic

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    Well that's not true.

    An Eu military (without Irish troops) could easily be established so long as the Irish government abstain from a vote. And don't for a second think that Biffo would stand up to the rest of Europe on this issue when you look at his track record so far.

    Ireland will be guilty in that case if Eu military force has innocent blood on its hands.


  • Options
    #93
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Such a force would most likely exlude Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Britain and probably many more and would be unviable. I don't see it happening anytime in the forseeable future. And besides there is nothing stopping France and Germany forming their own combined military outside the EU and calling it the European military. Such a force would as representative of us as much as an EU military without Ireland would.


  • Options
    #94
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    So can I take it you admit that what you said above was wrong. It is important that people are aware of this.

    sink wrote: »
    And besides there is nothing stopping France and Germany forming their own combined military outside the EU and calling it the European military. Such a force would as representative of us as much as an EU military without Ireland would.

    I see a hell of a difference. Ireland would have NO say in a franco-german military cooperation BUT for irish representatives to allow (simply by not using their veto or worse voting yes) an EU army force to go into a situation where innocent blood is spilt would be an abomination.

    You seem to be sticking your head in the sand on this issue. It's not simply a case of blocking your ears and it will go away you know.


  • Options
    #95
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    johnnyq wrote: »
    So can I take it you admit that what you said above was wrong. It is important that people are aware of this.




    I see a hell of a difference. Ireland would have NO say in a franco-german military cooperation BUT for irish representatives to allow (simply by not using their veto or worse voting yes) an EU army force to go into a situation where innocent blood is split would be an abomination.

    You seem to be sticking your head in the sand on this issue. It's not simply a case of blocking your ears and it will go away you know.

    I'm actually in favor of a European military and imo this treaty does not do anything remotely close to bringing that into being. I respect that alot of people don't so i'm not going to push the issue. I do find it annoying that people argue that this treaty will somehow bring about a European military when it clearly won't. It is politically unviable at the moment.


  • Options
    #96
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    sink wrote: »
    I do find it annoying that people argue that this treaty will somehow bring about a European military when it clearly won't. It is politically unviable at the moment.

    Sink, whether or not the european army is politically unviable at the moment is irrelevant.

    I have already shown how the treaty allows our government to cowardly attempt to wash it's hands of any casualties caused by a new EU force.

    As far as I can see the *only* thing you have correct in this area is that Irish troops cannot become involved without another referendum.

    Just don't be fooled into thinking that because of this that Ireland is somehow immune from any responsibility for potential harm committed by a european army.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    johnnyq wrote: »
    Just don't be fooled into thinking that because of this that Ireland is somehow immune from any responsibility for potential harm committed by a european army.

    We would be as responsible as for what the IRA did in our names.


  • Options
    #98
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    sink wrote: »
    We would be as responsible as for what the IRA did in our names.
    Really?

    I don't recall electing a political representative who was involved in or abstained from the decision making process of the IRA.

    Your IRA example would be equivalent of that franco-german force which we would have no say in creating devastation on behalf of Europe.


  • Options
    #99
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    sink wrote: »
    turgon wrote:
    Common European Defence. Read article 42 of the consolidated treaty. Its all there.
    That argument has been proven bogus. No doubt there is a sentiment to form a EU military but it provides no way of doing so without another referendum in this country.

    True - on the other hand if one is opposed to a European Common Defence in principle, then it doesn't really matter whether it is applicable in Ireland. Personally, I prefer multilateral forces to national forces, so I certainly don't object in principle.

    Nor do I think much of the argument that, by allowing an EU force to exist, Ireland will have "blood on its hands" even if that EU force doesn't include Ireland. If that is the case, then we have blood on our hands as a result of the actions of our EU partners already, and it is an act worthy of Pontius Pilate to claim we don't because we've voted against there being a process that might make us responsible.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement