The people of Ireland have spoken.

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

Not suggesting that at all and I do agree the EU needs foreign relations to some degree. Just clarifying for Scofflaw that I would find it difficult to believe that the EU would plan to set up 160 embassies as reported in the Telegraph (and I voted 'No' to Lisbon - all no voters don't believe everything the Eurosceptic press publish )

Ah, fair enough. Misread your posts so. :pac:

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

Not suggesting that at all and I do agree the EU needs foreign relations to some degree. Just clarifying for Scofflaw that I would find it difficult to believe that the EU would plan to set up 160 embassies as reported in the Telegraph (and I voted 'No' to Lisbon - all no voters don't believe everything the Eurosceptic press publish )

It seems perfectly reasonable and fair to me as to how it is operating at present, and I just don't see the need (or want) to change it.

The problems are essentially lack of coordination - responsibility for external relations is currently split between the Council, Commission, and Parliament, with both overlap and separation. That means duplication of effort, working at cross-purposes, turf wars, lack of accountability (where for example the Commission implements Council decisions without really being responsible for them). Coordination between the three institutions on external action is poor, and EU policy is also very poorly coordinated with the member states' various bilateral policies.

Despite this, the EU has external relations, and the EU Delegations already function as embassies, both legally and practically. However, the system behind them is fragmented and uncoordinated, and the delegations themselves are understaffed and underfunded - something which is often reflected in the EU's actions on the world stage.

The idea behind the External Action Service is to clean up the existing mess - to offer a single service for the articulation and implementation of EU external relations. It seems a reasonable goal, unless one is of the opinion that the EU should not have any external relations.


cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

If your looking for a good reason for EU embassies from a specifically Irish point of view I'll give you one.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56871635&postcount=118

He was turned away from the British embassy and Ireland did not have one, even though all EU members agree on what policy to take in regards to the conflict. If Lisbon had passed the British embassy would be legally required to look after him and there would even be an EU embassy which he could have gone to. Ireland is a small country and embassies are expensive so we don't have them in every country in the world Britain and France do and the EU will probably have if Lisbon is ratified.

thehighground

sink wrote: »

If your looking for a good reason for EU embassies from a specifically Irish point of view I'll give you one.

Sink, I'd be far more concerned about the majority of EU countries being members of NATO who side with Georgia against Russia. Russia are not exactly the bad guy here imo. We're getting a bit of a one-sided story.

I'm very surprised that the British Embassy refused to look after this person, because as my understanding is that we look after each others citizens when it suits. For example, sorting out Irish passports for British born people where an Irish passport might be dealt with more generously than a British passport. btw, I don't have a problem with either countries working together in this way!

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

The problems are essentially lack of coordination - responsibility for external relations is currently split between the Council, Commission, and Parliament, with both overlap and separation. That means duplication of effort, working at cross-purposes, turf wars, lack of accountability (where for example the Commission implements Council decisions without really being responsible for them). Coordination between the three institutions on external action is poor, and EU policy is also very poorly coordinated with the member states' various bilateral policies.

Despite this, the EU has external relations, and the EU Delegations already function as embassies, both legally and practically. However, the system behind them is fragmented and uncoordinated, and the delegations themselves are understaffed and underfunded - something which is often reflected in the EU's actions on the world stage.

The idea behind the External Action Service is to clean up the existing mess - to offer a single service for the articulation and implementation of EU external relations. It seems a reasonable goal, unless one is of the opinion that the EU should not have any external relations.


cordially,
Scofflaw

IMO, we (Irish) are on a completely different page as regards foreign policy etc. because of our history. I don't see the French, British, Germans and new Eastern European countries ever coming around to our way of thinking and why I'd prefer if we kept our distance on that particular front.

An example is that NATO (full of EU members) are supporting Georgia because Russia is the 'enemy' here. No one has really checked to see what Georgia has been up to! This is not right and I would prefer if Ireland could retain its neutrality and not be dragged into these wars and perhaps speak out the truth about what is actually happening.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

The problems are essentially lack of coordination - responsibility for external relations is currently split between the Council, Commission, and Parliament, with both overlap and separation. That means duplication of effort, working at cross-purposes, turf wars, lack of accountability (where for example the Commission implements Council decisions without really being responsible for them). Coordination between the three institutions on external action is poor, and EU policy is also very poorly coordinated with the member states' various bilateral policies.

Despite this, the EU has external relations, and the EU Delegations already function as embassies, both legally and practically. However, the system behind them is fragmented and uncoordinated, and the delegations themselves are understaffed and underfunded - something which is often reflected in the EU's actions on the world stage.

The idea behind the External Action Service is to clean up the existing mess - to offer a single service for the articulation and implementation of EU external relations. It seems a reasonable goal, unless one is of the opinion that the EU should not have any external relations.

IMO, we (Irish) are on a completely different page as regards foreign policy etc. because of our history. I don't see the French, British, Germans and new Eastern European countries ever coming around to our way of thinking and why I'd prefer if we kept our distance on that particular front.

An example is that NATO (full of EU members) are supporting Georgia because Russia is the 'enemy' here. No one has really checked to see what Georgia has been up to! This is not right and I would prefer if Ireland could retain its neutrality and not be dragged into these wars and perhaps speak out the truth about what is actually happening.

Sure - but that's a disagreement about what foreign policy should be implemented, not an argument against the EU having any external relations. The EU has a huge commitment to all kinds of external partnerships - Euro-Med, the ENP, Northern Dimension, the Middle East Peace Process, for example - as well as aid and development globally, plus dealings with the candidate countries, EFTA countries etc.

All of that requires an EU diplomatic presence worldwide - and the point is that we have one, but a badly fragmented and badly coordinated one. Lisbon wouldn't change the foreign policies we operate through the EU (it doesn't change the unanimity requirement), but it would make them a good deal more effective.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

thehighground wrote: »

Sink, I'd be far more concerned about the majority of EU countries being members of NATO who side with Georgia against Russia. Russia are not exactly the bad guy here imo. We're getting a bit of a one-sided story.

I'm very surprised that the British Embassy refused to look after this person, because as my understanding is that we look after each others citizens when it suits. For example, sorting out Irish passports for British born people where an Irish passport might be dealt with more generously than a British passport. btw, I don't have a problem with either countries working together in this way!

I think Saakashvili is just as guilty as Putin and even more foolish. Russia armed the Ossetians and permitted them to attack Georgian troops. Georgia shelled Tskhinvali resulting in civilian casualty and then assaulted it with Russian peackeepers still stationed there.

My post was nothing to do directly with the conflict and more to do with the lack of Irish embassies around the world and Lisbon would be of great benefit to Irish overseas.

I didn't even criticize Russia in my post why did you think I was putting and anti-Russian slant on it. FYI the French government and the EU have yet to directly criticize Russian actions and Merkel even went so far as to say some of Russia's actions were justified but they went too far and should pull back. Your anti EU bias seems to have caused you to side with Russia purely because you perceived the EU to be anti Russian. Britain and the eastern states certainly are but that is by no means the whole EU or NATO.

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

I think Saakashvili is just as guilty as Putin and even more foolish. Russia armed the Ossetians and permitted them to attack Georgian troops. Georgia shelled Tskhinvali resulting in civilian casualty and then assaulted it with Russian peackeepers still stationed there.

My post was nothing to do directly with the conflict and more to do with the lack of Irish embassies around the world and Lisbon would be of great benefit to Irish overseas.

I didn't even criticize Russia in my post why did you think I was putting and anti-Russian slant on it. FYI the French government and the EU have yet to directly criticize Russian actions and Merkel even went so far as to say some of Russia's actions were justified but they went too far and should pull back. Your anti EU bias seems to have caused you to side with Russia purely because you perceived the EU to be anti Russian. Britain and the eastern states certainly are but that is by no means the whole EU or NATO.

While Georgia is topical, and very obviously a foreign policy issue, it's also exactly the kind of situation that isn't ever likely to produce a coordinated EU response. The EU doesn't really deal with such matters (except as a possible mediator). The EU is not the US or NATO - it doesn't rush in with troops or the threat of troops, but instead simply leans a little more heavily one way or the other, using trade, aid, and international agreements instead of military force.

When one thinks of "EU foreign policy", you should think instead of long-term involvement in things like the Middle East Peace Process, or the very long slow business of pressurising the Arab states towards meaningful democratic and economic reform, by adjustments of who gets what under which conditions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

sink wrote: »

I think Saakashvili is just as guilty as Putin and even more foolish. Russia armed the Ossetians and permitted them to attack Georgian troops. Georgia shelled Tskhinvali resulting in civilian casualty and then assaulted it with Russian peackeepers still stationed there.

My post was nothing to do directly with the conflict and more to do with the lack of Irish embassies around the world and Lisbon would be of great benefit to Irish overseas.

I didn't even criticize Russia in my post why did you think I was putting and anti-Russian slant on it. FYI the French government and the EU have yet to directly criticize Russian actions and Merkel even went so far as to say some of Russia's actions were justified but they went too far and should pull back. Your anti EU bias seems to have caused you to side with Russia purely because you perceived the EU to be anti Russian. Britain and the eastern states certainly are but that is by no means the whole EU or NATO.

Sink, France (and Germany) is a member of NATO who are siding with Georgia. Sarkozy who chaired the meetings between Georgia and Russia on behalf of the EU is President of France. Get it. No wonder the Russians are unhappy about it!

And why is Merkel meddling? As far as I know, she has no official position in the EU.

As regards the lack of Irish embassies abroad - it has always been my understanding that there is an arragement between Britain and Ireland to look out for each others citizens and the British have a fair few around the world.

As for my bias, sorry, I do find it difficult to accept that Sarkozy could be impartial as a chair of any meeting between Russia & Georgia considering his main role is President of France.

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

While Georgia is topical, and very obviously a foreign policy issue, it's also exactly the kind of situation that isn't ever likely to produce a coordinated EU response. The EU doesn't really deal with such matters (except as a possible mediator). The EU is not the US or NATO - it doesn't rush in with troops or the threat of troops, but instead simply leans a little more heavily one way or the other, using trade, aid, and international agreements instead of military force.

When one thinks of "EU foreign policy", you should think instead of long-term involvement in things like the Middle East Peace Process, or the very long slow business of pressurising the Arab states towards meaningful democratic and economic reform, by adjustments of who gets what under which conditions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You mean like the recent negotiations the EU had with Israel and the notion being put out there that Israel could join the EU. The Arabs will love that alright! But, not to worry - the French arms business will do well out of it.

sink

thehighground wrote: »

Sink, France (and Germany) is a member of NATO who are siding with Georgia. Sarkozy who chaired the meetings between Georgia and Russia on behalf of the EU is President of France. Get it. No wonder the Russians are unhappy about it!

And why is Merkel meddling? As far as I know, she has no official position in the EU.

As regards the lack of Irish embassies abroad - it has always been my understanding that there is an arragement between Britain and Ireland to look out for each others citizens and the British have a fair few around the world.

As for my bias, sorry, I do find it difficult to accept that Sarkozy could be impartial as a chair of any meeting between Russia & Georgia considering his main role is President of France.

Merkel was speaking in her capacity as the German Chancellor. Germany is also an EU & NATO member gets to decide on what direction those organisations should take. Sarkozy when speaking in his capacity as EU president has to represent the view of the European Council and has no authority to make statements without the agreement of the other 26 countries. NATO has not officially taken a side in the dispute a quote from it's website during the war was designed to be as neutral as possible.

The NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, is seriously concerned about the events that are taking place in the Georgian region of South Ossetia and said that the Alliance is closely following the situation. The Secretary General calls on all sides for an immediate end of the armed clashes and direct talks between the parties.

So far the only ones who have seriously condemned Russia are the US, UK and former soviet states. Almost everyone else has only called for and end to the violence and resumption of talks. Sarkozy may harbour a personal bias I don't know, but Berlusconi is a great admirer of Russian and Putin so that sort of balances it out. Russia has already unofficially suggested Italian peacekeepers could be placed in South Ossetia.

You mean like the recent negotiations the EU had with Israel and the notion being put out there that Israel could join the EU. The Arabs will love that alright! But, not to worry - the French arms business will do well out of it.

Israel has stated that while they are open to joining at some point so long as the current instability exist it is not a possibility. The EU commission has not taken a position on the matter, however because Israel is outside of Europe and Morocco was denied membership for this very reason it is unlikely Israel will ever be a full member. There is far more likely to be bilateral agreement but Israel will never be able to sit at any EU institutions. Israel isn't even a member of NATO due to it's instability.

Israel already has one of the largest arms manufacturing industries in the world for a country of it's size and there is nothing to stop France selling to them now. What's your point?

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

While Georgia is topical, and very obviously a foreign policy issue, it's also exactly the kind of situation that isn't ever likely to produce a coordinated EU response. The EU doesn't really deal with such matters (except as a possible mediator). The EU is not the US or NATO - it doesn't rush in with troops or the threat of troops, but instead simply leans a little more heavily one way or the other, using trade, aid, and international agreements instead of military force.

When one thinks of "EU foreign policy", you should think instead of long-term involvement in things like the Middle East Peace Process, or the very long slow business of pressurising the Arab states towards meaningful democratic and economic reform, by adjustments of who gets what under which conditions.

You mean like the recent negotiations the EU had with Israel and the notion being put out there that Israel could join the EU. The Arabs will love that alright! But, not to worry - the French arms business will do well out of it.

Let's just clarify that, shall we? An Israeli Minister has called for Israel to aim at joining the EU - the EU does not regard this as possible, and it is not under consideration.

So why bring it up? Essentially, you're just throwing an irrelevant bit of mud in an attempt to create the impression that the EU supports Israel the same way the US does, even though the EU is the financial mainstay of Palestine, and probably their best major ally on the world stage.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's just clarify that, shall we? An Israeli Minister has called for Israel to aim at joining the EU - the EU does not regard this as possible, and it is not under consideration.

So why bring it up? Essentially, you're just throwing an irrelevant bit of mud in an attempt to create the impression that the EU supports Israel the same way the US does, even though the EU is the financial mainstay of Palestine, and probably their best major ally on the world stage.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks for the Scofflaw - for those not bothered reading it the general point is that while individual Israeli politicians may from time to time throw the idea out there the reality is that the Israeli people don't want it and the EU isn't interested. There is no realistic chance of this happening in the fore-seeable future. No negotiations took place (although I wil admit highgrounds post was phrased in such a way as to suggest it even though he didn't explicitly say it) and no negotiations are ever expected to take place.

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

Thanks for the Scofflaw - for those not bothered reading it the general point is that while individual Israeli politicians may from time to time throw the idea out there the reality is that the Israeli people don't want it and the EU isn't interested. There is no realistic chance of this happening in the fore-seeable future. No negotiations took place (although I wil admit highgrounds post was phrased in such a way as to suggest it even though he didn't explicitly say it) and no negotiations are ever expected to take place.

Most importantly, Israel could not be a Jewish state if it were part of the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

sink wrote: »

Merkel was speaking in her capacity as the German Chancellor. Germany is also an EU & NATO member gets to decide on what direction those organisations should take. Sarkozy when speaking in his capacity as EU president has to represent the view of the European Council and has no authority to make statements without the agreement of the other 26 countries. NATO has not officially taken a side in the dispute a quote from it's website during the war was designed to be as neutral as possible.

So Portugal, UK, Denmark, Poland etc. etc. are all members of both EU & NATO - how come they don't get to 'meddle' like Merkel? Its at times like this one sees who actually is "at the heart of Europe".

Have you any idea why Barosa wasn't used for the discussions instead of Sarkozy? He would be seen as even slighly more neutral as Portugal is not a NATO heavyweight.

As far as Sarkozy is concerned - the Russians are objecting to a deal brokered by France according to Morning Ireland this morning. (France is a member of NATO*) . The Russians see Sarkozy who is French (with a bit of Hungararian blood) as representing France, who is a member of NATO. The Russians (along with most people) would obviously feel that there is the possibility of a conflict of interests

*Since it is not obvious to you why Russia might be distrustful of NATO's 'impartiality' just check out the origins of NATO to see why the Russians might think there is a conflict of interest. and NATO has declared that Georgia is still on course to become a member of NATO (according to Morning Ireland yesterday morning). Presumbly the support of both France & Germany would be required for that to happen.

So far the only ones who have seriously condemned Russia are the US, UK and former soviet states. Almost everyone else has only called for and end to the violence and resumption of talks. Sarkozy may harbour a personal bias I don't know, but Berlusconi is a great admirer of Russian and Putin so that sort of balances it out. Russia has already unofficially suggested Italian peacekeepers could be placed in South Ossetia.

The bottom line is Russia are not happy with the outcome and it looks like any EU attempts at brokering a peace are hampered by France/Sarkozy's rather prominent role in NATO.

Israel has stated that while they are open to joining at some point so long as the current instability exist it is not a possibility. The EU commission has not taken a position on the matter, however because Israel is outside of Europe and Morocco was denied membership for this very reason it is unlikely Israel will ever be a full member. There is far more likely to be bilateral agreement but Israel will never be able to sit at any EU institutions. Israel isn't even a member of NATO due to it's instability.

Israel already has one of the largest arms manufacturing industries in the world for a country of it's size and there is nothing to stop France selling to them now. What's your point?

Israel was told a couple of years ago that they would be considered for membership if they withdrew from the West Bank. I believe that most recent offerings have been not to develop any more on the West Bank - remain at 2003 developments. What I was referring to goes back to speculation about 2/3 months ago that Israel was on course to becoming an EU member with the announcement of a new Free Trade agreement between Israel and the EU. (This may come as a shock to you, but the EU does allow free tariff trade with non-EU member counries).

As for Isreal and its arms manufacturing capacity - Isreal, if not at war, is preparing for it. As for its membership of NATO - Isreal is no where near the north Atlantic (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation).

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's just clarify that, shall we? An Israeli Minister has called for Israel to aim at joining the EU - the EU does not regard this as possible, and it is not under consideration.

So why bring it up? Essentially, you're just throwing an irrelevant bit of mud in an attempt to create the impression that the EU supports Israel the same way the US does, even though the EU is the financial mainstay of Palestine, and probably their best major ally on the world stage.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That article goes back to nearly 2 years ago. Reason why I brought it up was because there has been a new Trade Agreement between Israel & EU (see my last post) and the speculation/discussion around that time was that the EU wasn't as dismissive of the idea as you infer it to be.

As for the EU being the financial mainstay of Palestine - I don't think the Muslim countries around Israel will even notice that. They probably think that only for them, the Palestinians would have been wiped off the face of the earth a long time ago!

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

Thanks for the Scofflaw - for those not bothered reading it the general point is that while individual Israeli politicians may from time to time throw the idea out there the reality is that the Israeli people don't want it and the EU isn't interested. There is no realistic chance of this happening in the fore-seeable future. No negotiations took place (although I wil admit highgrounds post was phrased in such a way as to suggest it even though he didn't explicitly say it) and no negotiations are ever expected to take place.

How do you know the EU isn't interested? You hardly think the EU are going to admit it in on their website now that there is the possibility of Isreal becoming a member of the EU. Israel already participate in the Eurovision Song contest and football tournaments in Europe not Africa.

If it brought peace and stability to the middle east, would it not be a good thing?

Interesting that you take at face value everything that the EU say, but automatically try and put some sort of a twisted agenda on a fairly straight forward comment.

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

What I was referring to goes back to speculation about 2/3 months ago that Israel was on course to becoming an EU member with the announcement of a new Free Trade agreement between Israel and the EU. (This may come as a shock to you, but the EU does allow free tariff trade with non-EU member counries).

That’s not entirely true. The agreement with Israel incorporates free trade arrangements for industrial goods and concessionary arrangements for trade in agricultural products; that is all.

The European Council has not been asked to take a stance regarding whether or not Israel is a European state. However, a precedent was set in 1987, when Morocco submitted an application to join the EU. It was rejected by the European Council on the grounds that it "did not consider Morocco a European country"; similar circumstances will most likely preclude Israel’s inclusion as a full member.

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

Interesting that you take at face value everything that the EU say, but automatically try and put some sort of a twisted agenda on a fairly straight forward comment.

Even more interesting that you bring up this idea of negotitation without a shred of proof to back it up. So there were trade talks, that doesn't mean that anyone is talking about Israel joining the EU. The reasons in the article Scofflaw linked are still just as valid today as 2 years ago. Nothing has changed in that regard.

And talk of trying to put some sort of twisted agenda on a straight forward comment:

thehighground wrote: »

As for the EU being the financial mainstay of Palestine - I don't think the Muslim countries around Israel will even notice that. They probably think that only for them, the Palestinians would have been wiped off the face of the earth a long time ago!

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

Even more interesting that you bring up this idea of negotitation without a shred of proof to back it up. So there were trade talks, that doesn't mean that anyone is talking about Israel joining the EU. The reasons in the article Scofflaw linked are still just as valid today as 2 years ago. Nothing has changed in that regard.

And talk of trying to put some sort of twisted agenda on a straight forward comment:

You missed or maybe ignored the word speculation if you care to read my post again.

In this instance it was discussed on a radio programme (most probably Pat Kenny's show). I don't actually have the time/inclination to find the link.

My point still holds that you seem to completely accept everything that the EU says without question to be actually the case. Most people understand that what is said publicly may not exactly represent what is going on in the background.

Most sane Europeans would be very unhappy for the EU to publicly announce that Israel might become a member (particularly after refusing Morocco).

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s not entirely true. The agreement with Israel incorporates free trade arrangements for industrial goods and concessionary arrangements for trade in agricultural products; that is all.

The European Council has not been asked to take a stance regarding whether or not Israel is a European state. However, a precedent was set in 1987, when Morocco submitted an application to join the EU. It was rejected by the European Council on the grounds that it "did not consider Morocco a European country"; similar circumstances will most likely preclude Israel’s inclusion as a full member.

What is not entirely true? Is there not a Free Trade agreement between the EU & Israel. Bear in mind Ireland can trade freely with other EU countries, but if it over produces milk for instance, it is fined (pays levys) for doing so.

Back in 1987 - was Turkey considered a European country? Oh, and how many members did the EU have then? Did Slovakia, Czech Republic exist as independent states back then?

Circumstances change!

sink

thehighground wrote: »

So Portugal, UK, Denmark, Poland etc. etc. are all members of both EU & NATO - how come they don't get to 'meddle' like Merkel? Its at times like this one sees who actually is "at the heart of Europe".

What are you talking about about. All those countries have gotten involved in diplomacy, what makes Sarkozy and Merkel 'meddlers' and not for instance David Miliband the British Foreign Secretary

"I have today had a number of calls with international colleagues. There is widespread concern about the escalating violence in Georgia...British representatives on the ground and the media have reported that Russia has extended the fighting today well beyond South Ossetia, attacking the Georgian port of Poti ,and the town of Gori, while Abkhaz forces have been shelling Georgian positions in the Upper Kodori valley. I deplore this. ... At the UN, the EU and the OSCE the UK will lend its strong support to all those committed to a swift resolution to the conflict"

Or the Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish Joint Decleration.

"We strongly condemn the actions by the Russian military forces against the sovereign and independent country of Georgia. Following the unilateral military actions of the Russian military forces, we will use all means available to us as Presidents to ensure that aggression against a small country in Europe will not be passed over in silence or with meaningless statements equating the victims with the victimizers."

Or the Prime Minister of Denmark

"We have to insist that the sovereignty of Georgia be respected. There are no military solutions. There is only one solution: diplomatic negotiation. The conflict in the breakaway region doesn't justify Russia's aggression"

thehighground wrote: »

Have you any idea why Barosa wasn't used for the discussions instead of Sarkozy? He would be seen as even slighly more neutral as Portugal is not a NATO heavyweight.

France isn't even fully integrated into NATO, De Gaulle pulled them out in 1958 and they've being running their military affairs completely independently since then. Sarko wants to bring them back in now but that will take time and still won't make them a heavyweight. The only NATO heavy weight is the US.

thehighground wrote: »

As far as Sarkozy is concerned - the Russians are objecting to a deal brokered by France according to Morning Ireland this morning. (France is a member of NATO*) . The Russians see Sarkozy who is French (with a bit of Hungararian blood) as representing France, who is a member of NATO. The Russians (along with most people) would obviously feel that there is the possibility of a conflict of interests

The reason Russia is objecting to the deal is because it calls for their immediate withdrawal which the are unwilling to do. Is calling for a immediate withdrawal biased against Russia, or is it just not letting Russia have everything it's own way? The goals of France the EU and NATO seem to be pretty much the same why would there be a conflict of interest? The all want to guarantee Georgian integrity while finding a peaceful solution to the conflict.

thehighground wrote: »

*Since it is not obvious to you why Russia might be distrustful of NATO's 'impartiality' just check out the origins of NATO to see why the Russians might think there is a conflict of interest. and NATO has declared that Georgia is still on course to become a member of NATO (according to Morning Ireland yesterday morning). Presumbly the support of both France & Germany would be required for that to happen.

It's obvious that Russia is distrustful of NATO the EU and the west in general so by your logic no one who is a member of any of them should even get involved because they might get in the way of Russian interests. Unless your motive is to give Russia a free hand in the Caucuses I really have no clue what you are getting at.

thehighground wrote: »

The bottom line is Russia are not happy with the outcome and it looks like any EU attempts at brokering a peace are hampered by France/Sarkozy's rather prominent role in NATO.

I wouldn't exactly call Georgia happy with the outcome either and who do you suggest should take over negotiations? Brian Cowen? Michael Martin?

thehighground wrote: »

Israel was told a couple of years ago that they would be considered for membership if they withdrew from the West Bank. I believe that most recent offerings have been not to develop any more on the West Bank - remain at 2003 developments. What I was referring to goes back to speculation about 2/3 months ago that Israel was on course to becoming an EU member with the announcement of a new Free Trade agreement between Israel and the EU.

Israel has never been given any commitment by the EU only that it's a possibility. Speculation is just speculation and means nothing. Turkey has been given more of a commitment. Once again you've lost me, I have know idea where you are going with this. What has this got to do with Lisbon or the South Ossetian conflict?

thehighground wrote: »

(This may come as a shock to you, but the EU does allow free tariff trade with non-EU member counries).

:mad: Do you think i'm a dunce or something? Stop trying to insult my intellegence.

thehighground wrote: »

As for Isreal and its arms manufacturing capacity - Isreal, if not at war, is preparing for it.

So Israel has an arms industry and needs to constantly assert itself to preserve it's existence, your point?

thehighground wrote: »

As for its membership of NATO - Isreal is no where near the north Atlantic (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation).

Neither is Turkey but it's in and Georgia is even further away and it's been given commitments.

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

You missed or maybe ignored the word speculation if you care to read my post again.

In this instance it was discussed on a radio programme (most probably Pat Kenny's show). I don't actually have the time/inclination to find the link.

My point still holds that you seem to completely accept everything that the EU says without question to be actually the case. Most people understand that what is said publicly may not exactly represent what is going on in the background.

Most sane Europeans would be very unhappy for the EU to publicly announce that Israel might become a member (particularly after refusing Morocco).

Sorry highground, I missed that particular post this morning, but nowhere in your original post in the matter do you mention that it is speculation, and even here you're refusing to quote a source.

I never accepted what the EU said, I read the link Scofflaw posted and summarised it. I also believe it, not because it was said, but because it makes sense. After all Israel would have to give up its status as a Jewish state to be a member of the EU. How many Israelis do you think would favour that. Other countries have been refused membership because they are not in Europe, this is just a fact and precedent not EU "propoganda" and the situation with Palestine is not one that the EU would ever want to become directly involved in, this just being common sense rather than propoganda.

You said you reckon you heard this on the Pat Kenny show, yet you lambast me (falsely & with no real due cause) for accepting what the EU says? Personally I'd trust the EU over the Pat Kenny show myself, despite my distrust of politicians, but then thats just me!

sink wrote: »

What has this got to do with Lisbon or the South Ossetian conflict?

I had actually forgotten this was a Lisbon thread!

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

That article goes back to nearly 2 years ago. Reason why I brought it up was because there has been a new Trade Agreement between Israel & EU (see my last post) and the speculation/discussion around that time was that the EU wasn't as dismissive of the idea as you infer it to be.

As for the EU being the financial mainstay of Palestine - I don't think the Muslim countries around Israel will even notice that. They probably think that only for them, the Palestinians would have been wiped off the face of the earth a long time ago!

If you can find one of those Muslim countries that is contributing more than the EU's €400 million (so far this year), you're welcome to share that information with the rest of us.

Otherwise, it rather appears that you're more interested in EU-bashing without any reference to the reality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

Is there not a Free Trade agreement between the EU & Israel.

“Free trade” implies that all goods can move between Israel and the EU without being subject to tariffs, which is obviously not the case. The aim of the agreement you refer to is:

…through the expansion, inter alia, of trade in goods and services, the reciprocal liberalisation of the right of establishment, the further progressive liberalisation of public procurement, the free movement of capital and the intensification of cooperation in science and technology to promote the harmonious development of economic relations between the Community and Israel and thus to foster in the Community and in Israel the advance of economic activity, the improvement of living and employment conditions, and increased productivity and financial stability…

http://europa.eu/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2000/l_147/l_14720000621en00030156.pdf

thehighground wrote: »

Bear in mind Ireland can trade freely with other EU countries, but if it over produces milk for instance, it is fined (pays levys) for doing so.

So? That has what to do with Israel?

thehighground wrote: »

Back in 1987 - was Turkey considered a European country?

Geographically, yes; that part of Turkey west of the Bosphorus is part of Europe.

thehighground wrote: »

Oh, and how many members did the EU have then? Did Slovakia, Czech Republic exist as independent states back then?

I have no idea what you’re getting at now.

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

thehighground wrote:

Oh, and how many members did the EU have then? Did Slovakia, Czech Republic exist as independent states back then?

I have no idea what you’re getting at now.

The EU, I think.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you can find one of those Muslim countries that is contributing more than the EU's €400 million (so far this year), you're welcome to share that information with the rest of us.

Otherwise, it rather appears that you're more interested in EU-bashing without any reference to the reality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You could bear in mind that the Israelis control the Palestinians and might not like the Palestinians receiving any aid from their enemies.

Also bear in mind that none of us speak arabic so might not be able to find too much information on this subject. However, I did come across this from 2006:

To address the concurrent crisis in the Palestinian Territories, the Kingdom [Saudia Arabia] has earmarked $250 million as a grant to be part of an international fund for reconstruction and relief in the Palestinian Territories.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/48126.php

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

The EU, I think.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No, not exactly - just a reminder that back in the late 80s, who would have believed that all these countries would now be members/aspirant members of the EU.

Nothing sinister, no attempt to do the EU down or anything - just a simple fact that times and circumstances change and nothing is set in concrete.

thehighground

sink wrote: »

What are you talking about about. All those countries have gotten involved in diplomacy, what makes Sarkozy and Merkel 'meddlers' and not for instance David Miliband the British Foreign Secretary

No they haven't got involved in diplomacy. Some have taken sides though, which are different to the views (official) being expressed by the EU. Who cares what Denmark has to say on the subject - most people are only interested in what Germany/UK/France has to say. Denmark are not at the heart of the EU and never will. Just like Ireland. And anyone who thinks Ireland ever was, or ever will be need to give their heads a shake.

France isn't even fully integrated into NATO, De Gaulle pulled them out in 1958 and they've being running their military affairs completely independently since then. Sarko wants to bring them back in now but that will take time and still won't make them a heavyweight. The only NATO heavy weight is the US.

The reason Russia is objecting to the deal is because it calls for their immediate withdrawal which the are unwilling to do. Is calling for a immediate withdrawal biased against Russia, or is it just not letting Russia have everything it's own way? The goals of France the EU and NATO seem to be pretty much the same why would there be a conflict of interest? The all want to guarantee Georgian integrity while finding a peaceful solution to the conflict.

I'd say its more about who is top dog between US and France/Germany with regard to Russia. Obviously they don't like the US meddling in their (European) territory.

Facts are (according to Morning Ireland) - Russia objected to France brokering the deal. It seemed to me to be a fact. They didn't say why they didn't want France brokering the deal. I'm speculating in that they feel that France would be more supportive of NATO and its aspirant member Georgia, which NATO have declared that Georgia is still on course to become a member. And the country/person brokering the deal is also a member of NATO.

If you can't see the obvious conflict of interests there, we better leave this part of the discussion because I'm not going to convince you of anything.

It's obvious that Russia is distrustful of NATO the EU and the west in general so by your logic no one who is a member of any of them should even get involved because they might get in the way of Russian interests. Unless your motive is to give Russia a free hand in the Caucuses I really have no clue what you are getting at.

Sorry, I have no motives about anything. My point is that I feel that overall the big, powerful EU countries in Europe who are going to dominate EU business have a collosal amount of baggage with them. Most of the Nordic countries and ourselves, Switzerland etc. just don't carry the same baggage. And in my opinion, I'd prefer if Ireland kept its distance from them.

I wouldn't exactly call Georgia happy with the outcome either and who do you suggest should take over negotiations? Brian Cowen? Michael Martin?

I wouldn't dream of letting any of them near the situation. Surely there is someone who would be neutral or nearly neutral person? What about Barosa? Is there a Sean McBride type person about from Switzerland, Norway, Australia?

Israel has never been given any commitment by the EU only that it's a possibility. Speculation is just speculation and means nothing. Turkey has been given more of a commitment. Once again you've lost me, I have know idea where you are going with this.

No - not in public.

What has this got to do with Lisbon or the South Ossetian conflict?

Under Lisbon, it is going to be difficult to remain and be seen to be a neutral country perhaps?

So Israel has an arms industry and needs to constantly assert itself to preserve it's existence, your point?

All countries manufacturing arms, planes etc. would like to have Israel as a customer.

Neither is Turkey but it's in and Georgia is even further away and it's been given commitments.

Other reason why one would become a member of NATO is if you shared a border with the old Soviet Union or were part of said Union like Georgia was.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

You could bear in mind that the Israelis control the Palestinians and might not like the Palestinians receiving any aid from their enemies.

Also bear in mind that none of us speak arabic so might not be able to find too much information on this subject. However, I did come across this from 2006:

To address the concurrent crisis in the Palestinian Territories, the Kingdom [Saudia Arabia] has earmarked $250 million as a grant to be part of an international fund for reconstruction and relief in the Palestinian Territories.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/48126.php

Sure - a one-off sum less than the EU gives every six months. I'm not saying the surrounding countries don't give aid (although they won't accept the Palestinians themselves) - I'm pointing out that the truth of the matter is that the EU is the financial mainstay of Palestine.

No, not exactly - just a reminder that back in the late 80s, who would have believed that all these countries would now be members/aspirant members of the EU.

Nothing sinister, no attempt to do the EU down or anything - just a simple fact that times and circumstances change and nothing is set in concrete.

True, no-one could imagine that Communist countries would join the EU - and none have. Israel as it is now cannot join the EU. It cannot remain a Jewish country and join the EU - and Israel's raison d'etre is as a Jewish country.

Nor, despite all the hoo-haw about it, has Turkey actually been allowed in. It's been an applicant for 20 years, while those countries that were behind the Iron Curtain when it first applied have emerged, applied, and joined. They have succeeded because they are part of Europe, and most of Turkey is not - and if Turkey is not, then Israel certainly isn't - conversely, if Israel were ever considered, there could be no further objection to Turkey.

I make these points because you seem, rather obliquely, to be accusing the EU of a pro-Israeli bias on the apparent basis that Israel might be considered for membership, even though that has not actually occurred - Israel has never asked, and the EU has dismissed the idea out of hand.

In turn, I'm not sure why you've decided to take such a tack. The facts are indisputable (even as you dispute them) - the EU is Palestine's main financial source, and the EU has been engaged in trying to find a solution acceptable to all parties since 1971. The EU is also a huge trade partner of Israel, which is (given the US veto at the UN) the only form of external pressure that can realistically be applied to Israel. This kind of soft pressure through trade and aid is exactly how the EU does things. What would you have them do instead? Use military force?

What might happen in 30, or 50, or 100 years isn't really relevant. Sure, the world might change so much that Israel could be considered for entry - but that's a meaningless point in considering whether the EU of today is biased towards the Israel of today - on account of changes that haven't happened, and may never happen.

Your argument starts with the future hypothetical, assumes it, and interprets the present in its light - not an unusual pattern for eurosceptic arguments, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw