The European Defence Agency

Red Sleeping Beauty

The EDA is incorporated into the EU in a Treaty for the first time (if Lisbon's ratified by everyone). It was included in the Constitutional Treaty with practically the same wording.

I have serious reservations about this body. Through it, the European armaments industry has got a leg in the door so to speak. The EDA seeks to help improve member state's military capabilities, encourage competition and efficiency and to aid research and development of "defence equipment" (arms, weapons, instruments for killing in wars etc.).Their "long term vision" expands beyond that rhetoric and gives a hint to what they're also about. There's talk about the fallout of globalisation - "Globalisation will produce winners and losers, as between countries and regions, and within societies." - and that this will lead to tensions with regards to global energy demand for the surrounding European regions. According to it, one of the challenges of "defence" is being held accountable both politically and legally - "It is likely that policy could become increasingly restrictive about the conditions in which military force is deemed legitimate.".



I'm really not convinced that this group is just a way to make sure that EU member states get a good bargain or "more bang for your buck" (as Lucinda Creighton put it). I don't think there's enough restrictions surrounding the EDA to prevent a conflict of interest as the EDA of course wants to help the European armaments industry compete in the world market for arms. Also, its activity is not strictly bound by the UN, it's not stated in their long term vision nor does the Lisbon Treaty impose any such restrictions - in fact it says somewhat tellingly "Military action, not explicitly authorised by the UN may become increasingly controversial.".

During the campaigns and debates it's not really been featured that heavily outside of Sinn Fein/Mary-Lou MacDonald or Joe Higgins talking about increased militarisation - with neither really fully expanding on it. Unfortunately it's been the dodgy claims of an EU army or conscription - brought up mainly by the "yes" side this time round ironically enough - that have dominated the debates at the expense of a real debate on the EDA. Actually it's not even been discussed that much or in that great length on this site as far as I'm aware (I did a quick google site search).




How is this relevant to us and this Friday ? Ireland's a part of the EDA, has been a part of it since 2004 - when it was setup during Ireland's presidency without public debate - and we contribute to its budget*.There might be a guarantee there on Irish contribution to or participation in the EDA but the govt. (and the other two big parties) seem convinced that this agency's motives are entirely wholesome. That's not good enough for me especially considering that there's been three referenda on treaties which incorporate this group into EU law and nothings changed fundamentally about its purpose or direction. It's been suggested that if we were to opt-out of the EDA then we would lose influence on it. That may actually be true because the EDA's future, how it operates and its goals will be decided through QMV and Ireland keeps a veto if it's still a part of the (EDA) project. So it seems like a bit of a catch-22.


Is no one else the slightest bit worried or concerned about this European Defence Agency ?

Links:
EDA Finance Reports
Long Term Vision ;Long Term Vision.pdf

______________________________
* €283,797 in 2007 ; 1.36% of GNI

Scofflaw

What exactly is the concern about putting it in the Treaty, though? As you point out, it already exists, we're already part of it - what changes with Lisbon?

If the EDA is in the treaties, then any extension of it would need to be voted on - if it isn't in the treaties, it appears we don't get a vote on it at all.

One might have concerns about the agency itself (although it's no EU Pentagon but a procurement and research agency), but how are these in any way changed?


puzzled,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

yet again (this has been brought up about 4 times in last month already! search is in top right )

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Is no one else the slightest bit worried or concerned about this European Defence Agency ?

no i am not worried about €700,000 being spend on bullet proof equipment for our peace keepers

compared to €54,000,000,000 being spent on NAMA its a good investment and may save lives

more here http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-06-23.131.0


/

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yet again (this has been brought up about 4 times in last month already! search is in top right )



no i am not worried about €700,000 being spend on bullet proof equipment for our peace keepers

compared to €54,000,000,000 being spent on NAMA its a good investment and may save lives

more here http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-06-23.131.0


/

That is a very interesting way to phrase things.

8-10

Alan Rouge wrote: »

and we contribute to its budget*
______________________________
* €283,797 in 2007 ; 1.36% of GNI

I love this little stat you found, particularly the 1.36% of GNI bit. To the layman it would nearly seem that you're saying 1.36% of Ireland's Gross National Income is being contributed to the EDA.

But of course that would make no sense as €283,797 isn't really that big a figure at all is it? If we're talking Irish GNI, which is about €49,000 per capita, that's the equivalent of less than 6 Irish people. And that's before I point out that the €283k is the bugetary contribution and the actual cost to Ireland in 2007 was €265,849, leaving a surplus of 17k, returned to Ireland as a deduction from the 3rd contribution in year N+1 (15 October 2008)

What you don't seem to want to reference is that the GNI % is using the EU's own resources ceiling, which is clearly noted in the footnote of the revenue table I presume you took the stat from (p28 of the 2007.pdf). Ireland's cash value of GNI to the EU is 1.36% of all participating member states.

How is this stat relevant? By all means say we contributed €265k in 2007 but can I ask you why you've included 1.36% and how it relates to your argument in any way? It just seems you've picked out the sexier figures and stats?

MrMatisse

8-10 wrote: »

I love this little stat you found, particularly the 1.36% of GNI bit. To the layman it would nearly seem that you're saying 1.36% of Ireland's Gross National Income is being contributed to the EDA.

But of course that would make no sense as €283,797 isn't really that big a figure at all is it? If we're talking Irish GNI, which is about €49,000 per capita, that's the equivalent of less than 6 Irish people. And that's before I point out that the €283k is the bugetary contribution and the actual cost to Ireland in 2007 was €265,849, leaving a surplus of 17k, returned to Ireland as a deduction from the 3rd contribution in year N+1 (15 October 2008)

What you don't seem to want to reference is that the GNI % is using the EU's own resources ceiling, which is clearly noted in the footnote of the revenue table I presume you took the stat from (p28 of the 2007.pdf). Ireland's cash value of GNI to the EU is 1.36% of all participating member states.

How is this stat relevant? By all means say we contributed €265k in 2007 but can I ask you why you've included 1.36% and how it relates to your argument in any way? It just seems you've picked out the sexier figures and stats?

I think youd find it a big enough figure if the stuff it was being used to purchase were being dropped on you or the two special needs teachers it could fund youre not allowed have as their is no money.

8-10

Really-Stressed wrote: »

I think youd find it a big enough figure if the stuff it was being used to purchase were being dropped on you or the two special needs teachers it could fund youre not allowed have as their is no money.

My concern is with the percentage given simply as GNI. I meant it's not as big a figure as it's been made out to be

If the figure of €283,797 is a relatively big one in terms of the scenario you're talking about, don't you think it's lazy and innacurate for the €17,000 odd of this, which wasn't actually a cost to Ireland, to be included as the figure by the OP? When the actual cost of contribution was as I stated €265,849?

So the OP has picked out the biggest (and wrong) figure he/she could for the argument despite it being an overstatement of nearly 7%?

Isn't that a big figure to you then?

My point is simply quote the right figures and don't try to mislead with them, I'm not discussing them, just their presence as a footnote.

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote:

I think youd find it a big enough figure if the stuff it was being used to purchase were being dropped on you or the two special needs teachers it could fund youre not allowed have as their is no money.

would you say the same

if the research results in saving lives of our soldiers in Chad and other places, that bulletproof technology may save (or already saved) lives of our boys

are you gonna put a price on their life too?

our soldiers are given a job to do, but not given the equipment or technology to do it safely and effectively, they had to beg the French to airlift them to Chad since our military didnt have the capacity to do that, thats a national embarrassment

and that money comes from existing dept of defence budget, not from anywhere else

once again 700k over 3 years is much better use of money that the billions being wasted on banks and developers

or for that matter what about the millions being wasted by FAS

Scofflaw

Really-Stressed wrote: »

I think youd find it a big enough figure if the stuff it was being used to purchase were being dropped on you or the two special needs teachers it could fund youre not allowed have as their is no money.

Or you wanted to buy a house, of course - even with dropping prices, Ireland's contribution to the EDA would just about buy a two-bed semi-detached in DUblin.

However, nobody's asking one person to stump up the money (although they might ask Declan Ganley, who could presumably cover it out of petty cash), nor is the amount of our contribution set in Lisbon.

What's the relevance of this to Lisbon, or is it really just being brought up because it sounds a bit scary?

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Also, we can withdraw from the EDA research at any time, with our without Lisbon

/

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

would you say the same

if the research results in saving lives of our soldiers in Chad and other places, that bulletproof technology may save (or already saved) lives of our boys

are you gonna put a price on their life too?

our soldiers are given a job to do, but not given the equipment or technology to do it safely and effectively, they had to beg the French to airlift them to Chad since our military didnt have the capacity to do that, thats a national embarrassment

and that money comes from existing dept of defence budget, not from anywhere else

once again 700k over 3 years is much better use of money that the billions being wasted on banks and developers

or for that matter what about the millions being wasted by FAS

It is when you can just buy that equipment off the shelf already so dont need to carry out research into how to make it.

I really dont think we need to buy large troop carrying aircraft to ferrying the army around the world and we hardly had to beg the french.

MrMatisse

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or you wanted to buy a house, of course - even with dropping prices, Ireland's contribution to the EDA would just about buy a two-bed semi-detached in DUblin.

However, nobody's asking one person to stump up the money (although they might ask Declan Ganley, who could presumably cover it out of petty cash), nor is the amount of our contribution set in Lisbon.

What's the relevance of this to Lisbon, or is it really just being brought up because it sounds a bit scary?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Discussion around the mutual defence clauses in the thing and where they may lead. But im sure you now that.

Smugly,
Really-Stressed

8-10

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Discussion around the mutual defence clauses in the thing and where they may lead. But im sure you now that.

Smugly,
Really-Stressed

Stick in the relative quotes if you would as you go along. Your part of this discussion so far confuses me. What's your argument?

MrMatisse

8-10 wrote: »

Stick in the relative quotes if you would as you go along. Your part of this discussion so far confuses me. What's your argument?

Sorry to confuse you.
Spending money on weapons is not a good way to spend it when it is better spent elsewhere.

Why carry out research into how to make weapons we need when you can already buy them off the shelf.

ei.sdraob

since when are bullet proof technology considered weapons?

that 700K wouldnt buy a tank never mind any reasonable sized equipment

and its a bit rich of Sinn Fein to criticize EDA when they are tied to scumbags and murderers who killed guards and civilians here in this country with their private army of thugs


the 700k is being used in a research project with other countries, and all the participants get the results and benefits, the 700k alone wouldn't get you the technology since its only available after the research is done

once again a good investment when compared to other rubbish our government is spending money on, and the fact that it will save lives


but sure whats the point of telling you, we present figures and facts and you just wave your hands around

ive yet to see a thread where you have provided any figures and facts to backup your opinion

typical

ixtlan

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Sorry to confuse you.
Spending money on weapons is not a good way to spend it when it is better spent elsewhere.

Why carry out research into how to make weapons we need when you can already buy them off the shelf.

Taken in isolation this sounds good. However if I said spending money on protecting refugees in Chad is not not a good way to spend it when it is better spent elsewhere, would you agree?

Ix

marco_polo

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Discussion around the mutual defence clauses in the thing and where they may lead. But im sure you now that.

Smugly,
Really-Stressed

I thought this thread was about the EDA? Are we now talking about the Solitarity Clause?

ei.sdraob

since when is

research into defensive bulletproof technologies to save lives of our peacekeepers

equals to

Really-Stressed wrote:

Why carry out research into how to make weapons we need when you can already buy them off the shelf.

Talk about the NO side getting desperate and taking things out of all context

marco_polo wrote: »

I thought this thread was about the EDA? Are we now talking about the Solitarity Clause?

he would not admit that hes in the wrong and tried to unsuccessfully twist things into something that they are clearly not,
so now hes trying to change subject, dont let him!


/

MrMatisse

ixtlan wrote: »

Taken in isolation this sounds good. However if I said spending money on protecting refugees in Chad is not not a good way to spend it when it is better spent elsewhere, would you agree?

Ix

The French should cough up more money to do it properly since is their mess.

According to yesterdays times the peacekeeping mission is not having much of an effect.

We would have to spend huge amounts of money to do it properly. We cant fund everthing especially clean up operations for messy colonial legacies.

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

since when is


equals to




Talk about the NO side getting desperate and taking things out of all context


/

YOU CAN ALREADY BUY IT.

YOU DONT CARRY OUT RESEARCH INTO THINGS YOU CAN ALREADY BUY WHEN MONEY IS TIGHT.

8-10

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Sorry to confuse you.
Spending money on weapons is not a good way to spend it when it is better spent elsewhere.

Why carry out research into how to make weapons we need when you can already buy them off the shelf.

Yet again no quotes? How much are the EU currently spending in this area? (hint: financial report 2007 in OP's post) Is this going to change as a result of the Lisbon vote? Please quote the text. (hint: www.lisbontreaty2009.ie)

If we have been a member of the EDA since 2004 shouldn't your objection have been made then?

MrMatisse

8-10 wrote: »

Yet again no quotes? How much are the EU currently spending in this area? (hint: financial report 2007 in OP's post) Is this going to change as a result of the Lisbon vote? Please quote the text. (hint: www.lisbontreaty2009.ie)

If we have been a member of the EDA since 2004 shouldn't your objection have been made then?

Countries have an obligation to improve their armies.

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

YOU CAN ALREADY BUY IT.

YOU DONT CARRY OUT RESEARCH INTO THINGS YOU CAN ALREADY BUY WHEN MONEY IS TIGHT.

[citation needed]

[reference needed]

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Countries have an obligation to improve their armies.

Irish army buys a radio

obligation fulfilled

something that we would have to buy anyways

/

8-10

Really-Stressed wrote: »

YOU CAN ALREADY BUY IT.

Bulletproof weapons?

link?

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

The French should cough up more money to do it properly since is their mess.

According to yesterdays times the peacekeeping mission is not having much of an effect.

We would have to spend huge amounts of money to do it properly. We cant fund everthing especially clean up operations for messy colonial legacies.

[citation needed]

[reference needed]

8-10

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Countries have an obligation to improve their armies.

link? quote text? am i really asking again???

MrMatisse

8-10 wrote: »

Bulletproof weapons?

link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar

Or contact your local US embassy.

MrMatisse

8-10 wrote: »

link? quote text? am i really asking again???

I suggest you monitor the other threads as well as this one. Has been donr to death

Or consult ei.sdraob or perhaps read the treaty.

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Irish army buys a radio

obligation fulfilled

something that we would have to buy anyways

/

I dont think thats what they mean.

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar

Or contact your local US embassy.

at what price?

once again alot of fud and opinion but no references and facts to backup your points

pft

Really-Stressed wrote: »

I dont think thats what they mean.

who is "they"

?