The European Defence Agency

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

[citation needed]

[reference needed]

You musnt have seen yesterdays Irish times.

Prob beacuse you/yee spend 17 hours a day on boards.

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

at what price?

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

pft



who is "they"

?

I gave you a reference. You can ring up for a price.

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

You musnt have seen the front page of yesterdays Irish times.

Prob beacuse you/yee spend 17 hours a day on boards.

what cant you answer the questions put to you, you are not getting of that easy mister

so you turn (yet again) to personal attacks?

you dug a hole for yourself, either answer the questions and provide proof (since you are the ones making claims here) or get out of the pan

Really-Stressed wrote: »

I gave you a reference. You can ring up for a price.

you are the one making the claim

you are the one who needs to provide facts and figures to backup your claim

otherwise its nothing more that fud and opinion

/

8-10

Really-Stressed wrote: »

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

Or contact your local US embassy.

Thanks. Oooh "Kevlar is very popular material for racing canoes"

"Civilian applications include Kevlar reinforced clothing for motorcycle riders to protect against abrasion injuries and also Emergency Service's protection gear if it involves high heat"

"It is used as an inner lining for some bicycle tires to prevent punctures"

"Kevlar is well-known as a component of some bullet resistant vests"

"It has also been found to have useful acoustic properties for loudspeaker cones"

"Kevlar was a key part of the design of Montreal's Olympic stadium for the 1976 Summer Olympics"

Sorry, your link is amusing, but I fail to see the part where it's used as a weapon?

Better link?

luckat

The original poster makes a fair point. Do we want to be part of a military alliance?

We already are, to the extent that our soldiers take on peacekeeping duties for the UN, and have done so for many years.

I'm not speaking as an expert, but I *think* the EU wants all armies to have similar equipment, so it's not a hames if they have to work together. Again, not an expert, but isn't Irish neutrality accepted by the Lisbon Treaty?

I'm not going to insult either the yes or the no side; this provides little help in reaching a sensible decision.

ei.sdraob

luckat wrote: »

The original poster makes a fair point. Do we want to be part of a military alliance?

where in Lisbon does it say we will become part of a military alliance? what military alliance?

were part of EDA (a research agency into defense technologies) for several years now, its not NATO or anything like that

and can leave at any time with or without Lisbon

/

8-10

luckat wrote: »

The original poster makes a fair point. Do we want to be part of a military alliance?

The Decision on Ireland’s legal guarantees, adopted at the June 2009 European Council states that “the Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality”.

The Common Security and Defence Policy's primary function is to provide the Union with an operational capacity to undertake peace-keeping and crisis management missions outside the territory of the Union. It does so by drawing on the civilian and military capabilities of the Member States.

The twenty-sixth amendment to our Constitution, approved by the people as part of the ratification of the Nice Treaty in October 2002, prohibits the State from entering into a common defence established under the Treaties. The wording of the proposed Constitutional amendment permitting ratification of the Lisbon Treaty carries this provision forward.

We voted for Nice, prohibiting Ireland from entering into a common defence (I presume this is what you mean by military alliance? We will still collaberate with other countries on certain peace-keeping missions which we can opt-into at our discretion, same as it is currently), this provision is maintained under Lisbon.

Fear not!

Scofflaw

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.

OK, you object to the spending, minimal as it is - but what does it have to do with Lisbon? We're in the EDA, the EDA exists - neither of those are changed by Lisbon.

I'm not seeing the relationship here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

luckat wrote: »

The original poster makes a fair point. Do we want to be part of a military alliance?

We already are, to the extent that our soldiers take on peacekeeping duties for the UN, and have done so for many years.

I'm not speaking as an expert, but I *think* the EU wants all armies to have similar equipment, so it's not a hames if they have to work together. Again, not an expert, but isn't Irish neutrality accepted by the Lisbon Treaty?

I'm not going to insult either the yes or the no side; this provides little help in reaching a sensible decision.

Irish neutrality is protected in Lisbon by the same mechanisms that have been in every treaty. We have a Constitutional prohibition on joining a common defence, and a veto on any common foreign policy, and any of the issues that might be felt to infringe our neutrality are required in the treaty text to operate without prejudice to our neutrality (aka "the specific character of our security and defence policy" ).

Neither EDA membership, nor the mutual assistance provisions of the Treaty, require us to either take part in, or support, any military operations, nor do they require any commitment on our part to increased military spending:

GUARANTEE ON SECURITY AND DEFENCE (New)

The Union's action on the international scene is guided by the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The Union's common security and defence policy is an integral part of the common foreign and security policy and provides the Union with an operational capacity to undertake missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.

It does not prejudice the security and defence policy of each Member State, including Ireland, or the obligations of any Member State.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. It will be for Member States - including Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality - to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory.

Any decision to move to a common defence will require a unanimous decision of the European Council. It would be a matter for the Member States, including Ireland, to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and with their respective constitutional requirements, whether or not to adopt a common defence.

Nothing in this Section affects or prejudices the position or policy of any other Member State on security and defence.

It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured cooperation or the European Defence Agency.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation.

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities. It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

The idea behind Ireland being part of the EDA is in order to save money by buying standardised European military equipment, and by using standardised European procurement processes:

D&#225 wrote: »

Ireland is a contributor to initiatives and the ongoing work programme of the EDA, which includes identifying and overcoming shortfalls in capabilities development to increase the capacity of the Union to undertake appropriate peace support operations. These include initiatives in relation to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosives protection, CBRNE, communication and network systems and improved Counter-IED, improvised explosive devices, capability to enable military forces to operate safely.

In 2007, Ireland joined the Joint Investment Programme on Force Protection, which has a budget of €55 million over three years. Ireland’s contribution amounts to €700,000 over the three years. Force protection involves measures to protect personnel engaged in peace support and crisis management operations overseas and is one of the main factors considered when undertaking any operation. Ireland’s key interest in the programme is in the development of technologies and capabilities to protect troops from threats such as snipers, booby traps and improvised explosive devices. Body armour, sensors and counter explosive devices are all key elements of the programme.

Ireland also participates in the EDA’s code of conduct for defence procurement and a code of best practice in the supply chain, developed to ensure transparency in procurement and security of supply of defence equipment. The EDA have also developed a European bulletin board, which acts as a single portal for defence contract opportunities. This has enabled wider advertising of Ireland’s defence force contracts so as to achieve better value for money for Ireland’s expenditure on defensive equipment.

The main benefit is the "cash and carry" benefit - Ireland on its own places small orders, which cost more per Irish soldier:

D&#225 wrote: »

The benefits of the EDA for Ireland are twofold. First, it allows for economies of scale. It will allow us to get much better value for the money we are spending on defence equipment by regularising the market. The market has been very fragmented and the EDA has done much to bring it together. Second, it has enabled Ireland to avail of the same information and research as our potential EU partners in peacekeeping. When Irish troops go into the arena as part of a UN-mandated EU mission, they will have communications equipment, tanks and general military equipment that are compatible with that of their partners. That is designed to make the operation more efficient and to ensure the safety of our troops.

cordially,
Scofflaw

luckat

Are we part of the European Battle Groups?

Scofflaw

luckat wrote: »

Are we part of the European Battle Groups?

Yes - we have 85 soldiers in the Nordic Battlegroup.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MrMatisse

8-10 wrote: »

Thanks. Oooh "Kevlar is very popular material for racing canoes"

"Civilian applications include Kevlar reinforced clothing for motorcycle riders to protect against abrasion injuries and also Emergency Service's protection gear if it involves high heat"

"It is used as an inner lining for some bicycle tires to prevent punctures"

"Kevlar is well-known as a component of some bullet resistant vests"

"It has also been found to have useful acoustic properties for loudspeaker cones"

"Kevlar was a key part of the design of Montreal's Olympic stadium for the 1976 Summer Olympics"

Sorry, your link is amusing, but I fail to see the part where it's used as a weapon?

Better link?

Also says used in Kevlar body armor such as vests for police officers, security, and SWAT. ( You must have missed that bit) and is used as a temporary lining on american hummers as the discovery channel will tell you.

RealityCheck

luckat wrote: »

Are we part of the European Battle Groups?

As said above yes we are in the Nordic Battlegroup under Swedish command. Also includes troops from Finland, Estonia and even Norway who are not even in the EU.
This of course makes sense considering that we are the more militarily benign countries of Europe.
The group will be on call for deployment in early 2011, but only in UN sanctioned missions.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

The EDA gains greater legitimacy and status from being incorporated into the institutional structure of the EU from the treaty. I really don't believe you overlook it being given treaty status as a significant step. Do you ?

Scofflaw

Alan Rouge wrote: »

The EDA gains greater legitimacy and status from being incorporated into the institutional structure of the EU from the treaty. I really don't believe you overlook it being given treaty status as a significant step. Do you ?

I can see a use to it, in that any extension of its remit will require a new treaty and an Irish referendum, which its current status doesn't.

Other than that, no, I have no real idea why you think it's significant. Perhaps you could explain?

cordially,
Scofflaw

8-10

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Also says used in Kevlar body armor such as vests for police officers, security, and SWAT. ( You must have missed that bit) and is used as a temporary lining on american hummers as the discovery channel will tell you.

How is body armor a weapon though? Do you throw it?

Edit: I got that bit, I understand it's considered military spending. But I originally asked where you think this weaponary research spending is. How much is it? What weapons are being bought? Please for the love of God give an answer with a relevant link to the finances indicating weapon-spending (please no more body armor), and the text of the treaty which you argue. Last time I ask, I promise.

I really just want the figures.

luckat

It's hard to give figures. Some software companies are listed as "defence contractors" because they sell to foreign governments' war defence departments, I think.

ei.sdraob

luckat wrote: »

It's hard to give figures. Some software companies are listed as "defence contractors" because they sell to foreign governments' war defence departments, I think.

the figure is 700,000 being spend by Ireland

for a bullet proof armor research project with other EU countries

reference provided earlier in thread

theres nothing more to it

bk

Really-Stressed wrote: »

YOU CAN ALREADY BUY IT.

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

Actually you can't. The body armour Irish soldiers currently wear is only good enough to stop handgun rounds and low powered rifle rounds, it isn't good enough to stop high caliber rifle rounds, the type found in sniper rifles.

The US does have body armour capable of stopping high caliber rifle rounds, it is called level4+ armour. The problem is they don't allow it to be exported and sold outside the US (even US police can't get it).

So if we want equivalent body armour, we are going to have to develop it our selfs.

BTW even the US continues to spend tens if not hundreds of millions on researching new armour, as the current level4+ armour is very heavy, so lots of soldiers don't wear it and it isn't perfect protection, some higher caliber rounds can still penetrate it.