Ireland and Neutrality?

CCCP^

Well, supposedly, one of the big problems voters had with the Lisbon treaty the last time was over the issue of neutrality. Lisbon proposes some co-operation in the spheres of defence, such as coming to the aid of member states who face armed aggression from another state and coming to the aid of member states facing terrorist attacks. Apparently people were confused and thought Lisbon would make Irish people able for conscription.

The current government under Cowen sought reassurances on our behalf from the EU that our concerns over such issues as neutrality would not be compromised by Lisbon, and thats why we are voting again in October, but my issue is this: our neutrality is a farce.

Ireland is hardly a neutral country. If we allow USAF flights to land and refuel in Shannon, then that is aiding another military power. If Ireland has forces committed to the EU mission to Chad, that's hardly practicing neutrality is it?

The mission in Chad is not a UN peacekeeping mission, it's an aid to the current government of Chad, which has close links with the French, to keep it in power. If the mission there was to help the people in the Darfur region of Sudan, then why not go into Darfur? NATO did it with Kosovo, and that was all kosher wasn't it?

Ireland cannot be neutral if it pays into the EDA - the European Defence Agency, which works on the development of weapon technologies and the promotion of European weapons in the international armaments market.

I think the assurances and guarantee's over our neutrality must be one of the biggest red herrings of this referendum. The assurances that Ireland would only ever involve itself militarily if the Dail, Gov't, UN Security Council and EU approved of the mission isn't very reassuring. All the government needs is a majority in the Dail, and the UN is constantly undermined and outmanouvered by the US, despite the objections of the Russians and Chinese.

I think the sooner we accept the truth of our current situation, the sooner we can realise that Irish troops may, at some point in the future, support EU forces in some conflict. I am just finding it hard to figure out whether Lisbon makes any difference to this, because it's already happening.

roosh

What the Lisbon treaty also gives power to do is to take military action if there is a terrorist threat. Very similar to the reasoning used by Britain and the US to invade Iraq, due to a "terrorist threat".

If an increasingly militarised Europe seeks to get involved in fighting the "war" on terrorism, then it leaves all of its member states open to attack, including Ireland. Neutrality works in more ways than whether or not we want to go to war.

Plus, the guarantees that we received do not come into effect until a new treaty is ratified. The powers given to the EU, by the Lisbon treaty mean that the need for future treaties is reduced, because of the power that will be given to amend treaties in future.

Scofflaw

Last-ditch red herrings. We're in Chad as part of a UN force organised by the EU, and under, you'll notice, Nice. The guarantees we have on Lisbon are statements that the things they cover aren't in the Treaty, which includes most of what mangaroosh is hinting at. The existing state of our neutrality is an internal Irish matter.

None of this has anything to do with Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

prinz

It's interesting that if Lisbon is ratified Ireland's "traditional policy" of neutrality ( note; we are not officially a neutral country ) will be included in an international document which will be submitted IIRC to the United Nations as a watch-dog to ensure any breaches will be dealt with by a third party.

The Volt

Ireland had never been Neutral. This is one of the greatest lies ever told. During WWII when Allied planes crashed on our soil they magically ended up back over the border whereas Axis planes were kept in imprisonment until the end of the war. Ireland during WWII was not Neutral, rather non-belligerent. Yes we had no warlike relations with any of the countries but we did supply weather reports and all kinds of information to Westminister on a daily basis for the duration of the war.

ei.sdraob

prinz wrote: »

It's interesting that if Lisbon is ratified Ireland's "traditional policy" of neutrality ( note; we are not officially a neutral country ) will be included in an international document which will be submitted IIRC to the United Nations as a watch-dog to ensure any breaches will be dealt with by a third party.

@Prinz

does that mean

Vote YES if you want to stop Shannon being used for military flights?

that deserves a thread of its own!

prinz

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@Prinz
does that mean
Vote YES if you want to stop Shannon being used for military flights?
that deserves a thread of its own!

Doubtful, it merely confirms in international law the traditional policy of military neutrality.

"The Lisbon Treaty does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality"

http://www.kosmopolito.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/lisbon.pdf

I heard that the guarantees will be submitted to the UN so that in the unlikely event of a breach, we will have recourse there as a third party adjudicator between ourselves and the E.U.

Given that there no such mention in the Bunreacht here it seems pretty concrete to me, that finally, in a binding international agreement our traditional policuy is being recognised officially.

View

CCCP^ wrote: »

The mission in Chad is not a UN peacekeeping mission,

Yet more nonsense. The UN resolution - 1778(2007) - which authorised the EUFOR mission (as part of the UN mission MINURCAT) in Chad is here - http://minurcat.unmissions.org/Portals/MINURCAT/Resolution%20%201778%20-%2025%20September%202007.pdf

Incidentally, that EUFOR mission is now over. The UN forces there (which includes Irish forces) are now operating under UN resolution - 1861(2009). Relevant link is here to MINURCAT page is here - http://minurcat.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=859

roosh

an increasingly militarised Europe, with the power to act on "terrorist threats" leaves all its member states open to attack

RealityCheck

prinz wrote: »

It's interesting that if Lisbon is ratified Ireland's "traditional policy" of neutrality ( note; we are not officially a neutral country ) will be included in an international document which will be submitted IIRC to the United Nations as a watch-dog to ensure any breaches will be dealt with by a third party.

The only problem I see is that the European Court of Justice has stated that:

wrote:

An international agreement cannot affect the allocation of powers fixed by the Treaties or, consequently, the autonomy of the Community legal system.

This means that whatever is in Lisbon takes precedent over any international agreements, such as our legal gurantees that will be lodged with the UN.

Kalashnikov_Kid

Voltwad wrote: »

Ireland had never been Neutral. This is one of the greatest lies ever told. During WWII when Allied planes crashed on our soil they magically ended up back over the border whereas Axis planes were kept in imprisonment until the end of the war. Ireland during WWII was not Neutral, rather non-belligerent. Yes we had no warlike relations with any of the countries but we did supply weather reports and all kinds of information to Westminister on a daily basis for the duration of the war.

Neutrality is also not even mentioned once in our Constitution.

K-9

RealityCheck wrote: »

The only problem I see is that the European Court of Justice has stated that:


This means that whatever is in Lisbon takes precedent over any international agreements, such as our legal gurantees that will be lodged with the UN.

Any evidence of International agreements between all member states being over ruled?

RealityCheck

K-9 wrote: »

Any evidence of International agreements between all member states being over ruled?

In 2008, the EU ruled that EU law overrides international agreements that are outside the remit of EU treaties. The ECJ struck down an EU Regulation that was implementing a UN Security Council Resolution.

The ruling stated that: "an international agreement cannot affect the allocation of powers fixed by the Treaties or, consequently, the autonomy of the Community legal system".

http://www.asil.org/insights081028.cfm

WillieFlynn

Ireland knows which side to be neutral on....

Scofflaw

RealityCheck wrote: »

In 2008, the EU ruled that EU law overrides international agreements that are outside the remit of EU treaties. The ECJ struck down an EU Regulation that was implementing a UN Security Council Resolution.

The ruling stated that: "an international agreement cannot affect the allocation of powers fixed by the Treaties or, consequently, the autonomy of the Community legal system".

http://www.asil.org/insights081028.cfm

That other international agreements cannot affect the allocation of powers fixed by the Treaties is very different from EU law overriding international agreements. It's a statement that they're two different bodies of law.

regards,
Scofflaw

K-9

RealityCheck wrote: »

In 2008, the EU ruled that EU law overrides international agreements that are outside the remit of EU treaties. The ECJ struck down an EU Regulation that was implementing a UN Security Council Resolution.

The ruling stated that: "an international agreement cannot affect the allocation of powers fixed by the Treaties or, consequently, the autonomy of the Community legal system".

http://www.asil.org/insights081028.cfm

Ah, but they didn't strike it down.

The problem wasn't the UN Resolution, which they fully backed, it was the regulation implementing it.

Still, anything on ignoring international agreements between 27 member states?

RealityCheck

Scofflaw wrote: »

That other international agreements cannot affect the allocation of powers fixed by the Treaties is very different from EU law overriding international agreements. It's a statement that they're two different bodies of law.

regards,
Scofflaw

However, the treaty upon which we are voting defines the powers. In the eyes of the ECJ it is what is in the treaties that takes precedent over international agreements. Therefore it can be argued that the strict interpreatation of Lisbon overrules the guarantees.