why are we voting again

PopeBuckfastXVI

smithcity wrote: »

Now to open up a new kettle of fish, where do we stand on the EDA? Will Ireland be obliged to increase military spending?

I haven't done a huge amount of research into this area, but here's what the treaty says about defence:

Article 28, Paragraph 3, TEU post Lisbon wrote:

Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union
for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the
objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish
multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence
policy.
Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The
Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and
armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify
operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall
contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to
C 306/34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 17.12.2007
strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in
defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in
evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

I've bolded the bit I see quoted the most by no campaigners, I assume that's the basis of your question?

As you can see, it's in plain English: 'Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities'.

So there's nothing about increasing spending there, just that capabilities are increased, we have a current military budget in Ireland (it's tiny!) which is used for pay, maintenance and equipment procurement. There's no reason under Lisbon why that budget would have to increase, we already progressively increase our military capabilities, every time we buy a new gun or bullet.

We are just undertaking to do it, not saying by how much, how often or at what cost.

I believe this clause is a reminder to everyone not to rely on other peoples armies for their own military and civil defence, but to also have their own provisions.

I hope that answers your question?

smithcity

Partly, here's where I see the problem:

"The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to C 306/34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 17.12.2007 strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities."

My concern is that in a country where we are told we cannot afford to spend 10 million euros to innocculate little girls against the cause of cervical cancer we would apparantly find ourselves required to spend more money on weapons, or military R&D.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting the above quotation but doesn't it suggest that the EDA will be have the power to tell the Irish State where it needs to spend more on defence?

BlitzKrieg

And isnt there a large protocol in Lisbon outlining all the areas in security etc that Ireland and the UK are exempt from?

PopeBuckfastXVI

smithcity wrote: »

Partly, here's where I see the problem:

"The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to C 306/34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 17.12.2007 strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities."

My concern is that in a country where we are told we cannot afford to spend 10 million euros to innocculate little girls against the cause of cervical cancer we would apparantly find ourselves required to spend more money on weapons, or military R&D.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting the above quotation but doesn't it suggest that the EDA will be have the power to tell the Irish State where it needs to spend more on defence?

You're probably attributing them a bit too much power, they can 'assist' the council, but not dictate to them. We sit on that council, and AFAIK we have an opt out on Military matters, so we can't be forced to do anything we don't agree to.

smithcity

Touché, well, that's all I can absorb for now.
Talk later.

PopeBuckfastXVI

smithcity wrote: »

Touché, well, that's all I can absorb for now.
Talk later.

gizmo555

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So there's nothing about increasing spending there, just that capabilities are increased, we have a current military budget in Ireland (it's tiny!) which is used for pay, maintenance and equipment procurement. There's no reason under Lisbon why that budget would have to increase, we already progressively increase our military capabilities, every time we buy a new gun or bullet.

The defence budget for 2009 is €1bn out of an overall budget of €64bn - 1.6% of overall government spend. Much smaller than health, social welfare, or education, but hardly "tiny".

http://www.finance.irlgov.ie/Viewtxt.asp?DocID=5750&CatID=1&m=&StartDate=01+January+2009

http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/Release+ID/C25614A2678B77B2802574E3004E92FB?OpenDocument

It is also disingenuous to claim that every purchase of a gun or bullet constitutes an "improvement in military capability". Ammunition is used up in training or just reaches the end of its shelf life, weapons likewise do not have an indefinite lifespan. They both have to be replaced in the ordinary course of events, just to maintain existing capability.

I'm not particularly bothered by this clause of the treaty, because while it does place an obligation on us, it is very vague. At the same time, it is very hard to see what meaningful "improvement in military capability" could be achieved at no cost, and claims that pointing to a new box of bullets will cover it are, to put it mildly, tendentious.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Thanks Gizmo,

I think my points still stand though.

gizmo555

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Thanks Gizmo,

I think my points still stand though.

With all due respect, your assertions that our €1bn defence budget is "tiny" and that "we already progressively increase our military capabilities, every time we buy a new gun or bullet" certainly do not.

PopeBuckfastXVI

gizmo555 wrote: »

With all due respect, your assertions that our €1bn defence budget is "tiny" and that "we already progressively increase our military capabilities, every time we buy a new gun or bullet" certainly do not.

OK, it's not 'tiny' though that was a throwaway remark, and unrelated to the general point. How about 'very small', or 'not large', does it matter?

Also forgive my exaggeration, I thought it was obvious what I was saying. We increase our military capabilities every time we replace outdated/obsolete equipment with newer equipment, more suited to a modern Army.

We can do this without increasing expenditure, and nothing in Lisbon states we must increase expenditure.

Agreed?

BlitzKrieg

its also tiny in comparison to most other states. Not tiny in itself as a financial sum

PopeBuckfastXVI

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

its also tiny in comparison to most other states. Not tiny in itself as a financial sum

Really BlitzKrieg, it's completely irrelevant, don't bother.

I wasn't using the word in support of any of my arguments, so proving or disproving our budget being 'tiny' or not has no bearing on the argument.

gizmo555

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

OK, it's not 'tiny' though that was a throwaway remark, and unrelated to the general point. How about 'very small', or 'not large', does it matter?

Also forgive my exaggeration, I thought it was obvious what I was saying. We increase our military capabilities every time we replace outdated/obsolete equipment with newer equipment, more suited to a modern Army.

We can do this without increasing expenditure, and nothing in Lisbon states we must increase expenditure.

Agreed?

No, I don't agree. Lisbon says "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities."

Now, as I already said, I'm not too hung up on this, but I really don't see what meaningful improvements can be done on a cost free basis, nor do I accept that merely replacing equipment as it reaches the end if its useful life is such an improvement.

The treaty then goes on to say the European Defence Agency "shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities", which by implication gives the Council and EDA an oversight role in regard to each member state's defence which they didn't previously have.

I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I think you're going to the other extreme in claiming there is no molehill! These provisions are in the treaty for a reason and not merely to give the conspiracy theorists something to write about. If you asked me to speculate what the reason is, I'd say it's the usual EU method of extending its competence in small, incremental steps so as not to arouse too much controversy at each new step.

Personally, I'm not too bothered by this particular step, but I'll be watching the space closely!

Martin 2

***** "Why are we voting again?" *******

I know that this thread has meandered quite a bit and it's all been very educational (for me at least) so I hope readers won't mind too much if I bring it back to the original question "Why are we voting again?" by giving my two cents. This is my first post and I'm a Yes vote supporter.


-We are voting again because it is the only democratic way to measure if the will of the people has changed given our changed circumstances and the electorate's greater knowledge of the treaty (the latter is an assumption but reasonable).

-We are voting again because it's in the best interests of the Irish economy to ratify Lisbon and I base this on the fact that virtually every business organization and multinational supports a YES vote (see IBEC, SFA, IDA, IFA, ISA, Dublin & Cork chambers of commerce etc...) I know of none that supports a No vote. This has more to do with the negative impact and image that a NO vote creates (see recent comments by Intel's general manager and the IDA) amongst investors and customers than any particular article of the treaty, in fact the business community seems to have no problem with the contents of the treaty (see business orgs mentioned earlier).

-We are voting again because we need to ratify this inoffensive little treaty so that we can move on and solve the real problems of our country namely unemployment, debt, health, education etc. We may hate the government for the mess they've created but they are also the only ones who can get us out of our predicament and another NO vote would be very demotivating when it comes to solving our problems.

-We are voting again because by voting YES we want to show the rest of Europe that we are not isolationist and anti - European; I accept fully that these are only perceptions and not necessarily realities but perceptions do matter.

-We are voting again because I think most Irish people want to be a full part of the EU family and are grateful for all the help they have given us in the difficult times (from the late 70's to early 90's, I was there!) and a Yes says that clearly.

PopeBuckfastXVI

gizmo555 wrote: »

No, I don't agree. Lisbon says "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities."

Now, as I already said, I'm not too hung up on this, but I really don't see what meaningful improvements can be done on a cost free basis, nor do I accept that merely replacing equipment as it reaches the end if its useful life is such an improvement.

The treaty then goes on to say the European Defence Agency "shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities", which by implication gives the Council and EDA an oversight role in regard to each member state's defence which they didn't previously have.

I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I think you're going to the other extreme in claiming there is no molehill! These provisions are in the treaty for a reason and not merely to give the conspiracy theorists something to write about. If you asked me to speculate what the reason is, I'd say it's the usual EU method of extending its competence in small, incremental steps so as not to arouse too much controversy at each new step.

Personally, I'm not too bothered by this particular step, but I'll be watching the space closely!

Fair enough:
agree/disagree on degree of impact
agree impact is small at most.

smithcity

Martin 2 wrote: »

We may hate the government for the mess they've created but they are also the only ones who can get us out of our predicament

.... you can't be serious! They've roundly ignored every thought out and costed stimulus package suggested by Fine Gael without even attempting to introduce one of their own.

I know it's way off topic but I couldn't ignore that comment.

BlitzKrieg

you know I am borderline suspect that this could be the first account signed up from a government source

smithcity

Hehe, surprised the username is "Martin2", shud "B_Lenihan4eva" or maybe "Cowen_Rules_OK."
Can't believe he pulled the wool over my eyes so easily

Martin 2

smithcity wrote: »

.... you can't be serious! They've roundly ignored every thought out and costed stimulus package suggested by Fine Gael without even attempting to introduce one of their own.

I know it's way off topic but I couldn't ignore that comment.

I wasn't necessarily talking about a Fianna Fail government, after the next election there'll probably be a Fine Gael government (based on recent voting patterns) and they'll have to deal with whatever outcome we have from the referendum.

BTW, I'm not affiliated with any political party, and regularily change my voting preferences.

BlitzKrieg

BTW, I'm not affiliated with any political party, and regularily change my voting preferences.

only ribbing ya

Just there tends to be a large number of new signs ups in this forum, and they tend to be defending specific interests. So 1st posts are always eyed suspicously.

Martin 2

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

you know I am borderline suspect that this could be the first account signed up from a government source

BlitzKrieg, I can assure you I'm not a government source nor have I ever been. I wasn't necessarily talking about THE government getting us out of a predicament but A government and that a YES vote would make it easier for them (whoever they might be) and BTW I think the government ran a disastorous Lisbon campaign last time.

BlitzKrieg

= my post not to be taken seriously.

oncevotedff

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who's "we",

The Irish

oscarBravo wrote: »

and who's telling us to vote?

The Germans and the French. The old European Imperialists who have become the new European Imperialists.

Belfast

USE wrote: »

Because you are voting for the new conditions of the treaty. You are not voting for the same thing twice.

I would also add that the decision made with major argument "I don't know what the treaty says" should not be the one that shapes the future of half a billion EU citizens.

What new conditions of the treaty ?

smithcity

Again, I'm a No voter, but I don't think it's appropriate to blame the powerful EU states like France and Germany for the fact that we're being asked to vote again.

The buck stops with our own government, if Cowen had gone to the EU and said, "The people have spoken" after the previous referendum things would be different now.

Martin 2

smithcity wrote: »

Again, I'm a No voter, but I don't think it's appropriate to blame the powerful EU states like France and Germany for the fact that we're being asked to vote again.

The buck stops with our own government, if Cowen had gone to the EU and said, "The people have spoken" after the previous referendum things would be different now.

On the first point I agree, it wasn't France or Germany, in my opinion the government were always going to want a second referendum in the case of a NO vote, we did elect a pro-European government after all and it is their right to have a second referendum.

On the second point he did, in fact, tell the EU that the people had spoken, hence the government did not ratify the treaty.

smithcity

I think it's fair to say he went with his hat in his hand, apologetically looking for instructions of what to next.

Scofflaw

smithcity wrote: »

Again, I'm a No voter, but I don't think it's appropriate to blame the powerful EU states like France and Germany for the fact that we're being asked to vote again.

The buck stops with our own government, if Cowen had gone to the EU and said, "The people have spoken" after the previous referendum things would be different now.

Presumably, if the (current!) government had not had a policy of trying to ratify Lisbon that's what he would have done.

It's easy, these days, to forget the government has a point of view in referendums, and always has done. The McKenna judgement precludes them using tax-payer's money to try and persuade us one way or the other, but it's worth remembering that they're legally hobbled, not neutral.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

smithcity wrote: »

I think it's fair to say he went with his hat in his hand, apologetically looking for instructions of what to next.

I'd say that's a fair statement if you are talking about him going to the voters like that...

'Why did you vote 'no' and how can we fix it?' Seemed to be the theme, once the initial shock wore off.

Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'd say that's a fair statement if you are talking about him going to the voters like that...

'Why did you vote 'no' and how can we fix it?' Seemed to be the theme, once the initial shock wore off.

Which is an issue, of course, for those who will not change their votes under any circumstances - which is to say, most of the No campaigns.

cordially,
Scofflaw