PESCO; Ireland's military pact

recedite

We joined this pact recently but it has not been very widely noticed AFAIK. Perhaps it was just eclipsed by all the Brexit stuff.

On December 7, Portugal and Ireland announced their decision to join, taking the total number of contributing members up to 25. The countries that have chosen not to take part are Malta, Denmark - which has special opt-out status - and the UK (which is set to withdraw from the bloc in March 2019).
Mogherini, described the move as "historic," while European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker hailed the move on Twitter, posting: "She is awake, the Sleeping Beauty of the Lisbon Treaty: Permanent Structured Cooperation is happening."

http://www.dw.com/en/twenty-five-eu-states-sign-pesco-defense-pact/a-41741828


I think we used to say we were "a neutral country" but that does not seem to be the case any more. Especially now that the EU have put us sitting at the front of the class and given us a gold star to wear.
Sure we'd have to join it!
Denmark has apparently decided to stay neutral.


The Dail vote was last week, on December 7th.

THE DÁIL HAS voted to approve Ireland’s participation in Pesco – the EU’s permanent structured cooperation arrangement.
The motion was passed by 75 votes to 42. Both Fianna F and Fine Gael backed the motion.

Their video does seem a little bit creepy though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl9plpYWx6Y

murphaph

Still I think this is the right move. Ireland's neutrality has always been rather "flexible".

Junkyard Tom

Good. I'd like to see NATO leaving Europe and the EU having a more integrated defence strategy.

Samaris

First off, it's not an army. It is a mutual co-operation pact to enhance readiness and ability for member states to co-operate militarily. Two armies that work together are not one army. Sixteen armies that are practiced at working together is a massive problem for any external threat, however. It may or may not go further, but I'm not about to get hysterical yet. And yes, I did note the "the EU’s common security and defence policy".

And the truth is, it is pragmatic to do so. And to have one. The geopolitical situation isn't exactly rosy at the moment. America is not Europe's reliable ally currently and is actively provoking trouble. Russia has been making expansionist moves and making the easternmost EU countries extremely nervous. Britain was the largest military power (as well as being the most inclined to use it) but it's rather ineptly storming off in a huff. The Middle East is currently on fire. France is the next largest, but a definite second and nowhere near Russia. Germany has rather avoided arming up since everyone still remembers last time, none more so than the Germans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union
I went to look something up and it was interesting enough to read the whole thing.

As for Ireland's neutrality. I don't see that it is -yet- broken. Denmark remains exempt as you said. Our reputation means that Irish peacekeeping forces are respected and our passports are pretty safe to travel on. Other than that (and it's a pretty big that), I've never felt that strongly about Ireland's neutrality. Not sure that Ireland feels that strongly about it either, we've been a bit inclined to cheat before. Ireland also retains freely its "triple lock" of military missions abroad requiring the approval of the Dail, the Government and the UN. Troops remain of their own countries and it is entirely Ireland's choice of whether to commit troops. Which we've previously done on EU missions before now without anyone batting an eyelid (or noticing). Irish defence forces are in Mali at the moment on an EU-backed mission (peacekeeping/training) Members of the Gardai serve with the EU Rule of Law mission in Kosovo. This likely gives a lot more training to Irish troops (as well as commits to a raising of military budget so that might cause some aggro), but it does not de facto impact neutrality any more than Irish forces in Mali did. I don't quite see why we went in for the full PESCO set-up though.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Good. I'd like to see NATO leaving Europe and the EU having a more integrated defence strategy.

why?

solodeogloria

recedite wrote: »

We joined this pact recently but it has not been very widely noticed AFAIK. Perhaps it was just eclipsed by all the Brexit stuff.
http://www.dw.com/en/twenty-five-eu-states-sign-pesco-defense-pact/a-41741828


I think we used to say we were "a neutral country" but that does not seem to be the case any more. Especially now that the EU have put us sitting at the front of the class and given us a gold star to wear.
Sure we'd have to join it!
Denmark has apparently decided to stay neutral.


The Dail vote was last week, on December 7th.Their video does seem a little bit creepy though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl9plpYWx6Y

Good morning!

Bye, bye more sovereignty.

Handing over more and more and more control until Ireland has the same amount of control over its own affairs as Maine does in the US.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Manach

I was unaware of this signing until this week when the usual left-wing suspects started putting up their printed posters to "No EU Army". Hyperbole aside, that there has been no real debate on this is unsurprising as it sees a gradual erosion of public debate on security matters.

This is an issue in two main ways. One is the lack of US involvement. Like them or not, they have been the main bulwark of European security since WWII. To image that the under-spending European powers can project or even stand up to a power like Russia (should it extend into the Baltic) shows a lack of reality by this pact's creators (source readings from "FutureWar" by L. Freedman and currently readings from "War in 2020"). Second is any aggression against a fellow signatory could potentially trigger involvement by all in a counter action. This form of tunneled decision cascade had been criticized by Barbara Tuchman in her book "Guns of August" as one of the key reasons behind WWI. I don't see current European diplomats in the same class as their peers a century ago nor (based on the Banking crisis) have any confidence in the Irish government not being dragged into such a conflict.

murphaph

Aegir wrote: »

why?

Personally I think NATO is a relic of the aftermath of WWII which served its purpose but should ultimately be replaced by EU members. The EU or even the idea of something like it did not exist when NATO was founded. The EU member states should be able to defend themselves jointly and not rely on US military muscle.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Bye, bye more sovereignty.

Handing over more and more and more control until Ireland has the same amount of control over its own affairs as Maine does in the US.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If Maine was an independent country would it be stronger or weaker on the world stage than as part of the United States?

recedite

Samaris wrote: »

As for Ireland's neutrality. I don't see that it is -yet- broken. Denmark remains exempt as you said....
Ireland also retains freely its "triple lock" of military missions abroad requiring the approval of the Dail, the Government and the UN.

Manach wrote: »

..any aggression against a fellow signatory could potentially trigger involvement by all in a counter action. This form of tunneled decision cascade had been criticized by Barbara Tuchman in her book "Guns of August" as one of the key reasons behind WWI.

Two different views given above on this defence pact. I'm not sure which is closer to the truth, and I seriously doubt that the inhabitants of the Dail had any better grasp of it when they voted us in.

A "Common Security and Defence Policy" does not seem like something its members can take an a la carte approach to. It seems we have signed up to this alliance which was mentioned as part of the Lisbon Treaty, and only now is being activated, like Sleeping Beauty according to Juncker (or Frankenstein's monster as others might quip) The Lisbon Treaty diluted Irish sovereignty because we agreed that EU treaty law would trump any Irish laws. So if there is any conflict between the Dail "triple lock" and the requirements of PESCO then our laws go out the window.

At the time of signing Lisbon there was a major fuss about whether this would conflict with our neutrality stance. Largely due to this, the Irish people rejected the Lisbon treaty. As a result, we secured a specially worded opt-out, voted again, and signed it the second time.
Here's what was said back in 2008

A neutral state cannot legally or politically sign up to the Lisbon Treaty mutual assistance clause because it violates neutrality

Now it seems the Dail has signed us up for the very thing the Irish people rejected.

OK maybe the Irish people have changed their minds about neutrality since then, but where's the referendum, or even an opinion poll?

Defence pacts generally depend on the MAD doctrine of mutually assured destruction. These pacts have kept Europe mostly at peace since 1945, but also destroyed most of Europe 1914-1918 when tragically most of the countries participating in the destruction had no real quarrel with each other.

I think the main problem here is that we have just slipped into it with no real debate. Juncker wants it, therefore "the EU" wants it, and as our role in the EU seems to have become the "poster child of the EU", we automatically just go along with it.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Bye, bye more sovereignty.

Handing over more and more and more control until Ireland has the same amount of control over its own affairs as Maine does in the US.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No you right we'd be much better taking on the Russians by ourselves.

James Brown

Manach wrote: »

I was unaware of this signing until this week when the usual left-wing suspects started putting up their printed posters to "No EU Army". ...

So thank you, 'usual left wing suspects'.

murphaph wrote: »

Still I think this is the right move. Ireland's neutrality has always been rather "flexible".

The 'neutrality' thing is pretty much a joke.

nuac

I am glad we joined PESCO.

Ní neart gur chuir le chéile and all that.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

Personally I think NATO is a relic of the aftermath of WWII which served its purpose but should ultimately be replaced by EU members. The EU or even the idea of something like it did not exist when NATO was founded. The EU member states should be able to defend themselves jointly and not rely on US military muscle.

NATO is a relic of the cold war and as we seem to think that the biggest threat comes from Russia, then it may be that the cold war isn't over, so maybe we still need NATO?

I agree that europe shouldn't rely on the US to protect it, but seeing as most of europe doesn't even spend the required NATO amount on defence, it is hard to imagine the eu ever getting to a point where it can get anywhere remotely close to the budget required to replace the Turkish, US and Canadian militaries.

recedite

Aegir wrote: »

it is hard to imagine the eu ever getting to a point where it can get anywhere remotely close to the budget required to replace the Turkish, US and Canadian militaries.

I think the EU could muster the finance and numbers to create a substantial military, one of the biggest in the world.
The interests of the USA and Turkey may not always align with European interests.

I don't see Russia as being any threat to Europe.
It is noticeable that Turkey has co-operated more with Russia recently than it has with the USA.

Nato members are a disparate group. I suspect that in a difficult situation, Nato members might act more according to their own interests than to the exact terms of the Nato treaty.

Regardless of all the above issues and opinions, here in Ireland we still have the issue of the Dail ditching our neutrality and taking us into a military pact, despite the Irish people having previously rejected that idea.

No doubt this new EU confederate army would only be used as a force for good in the world, and these new imperial stormtroopers would only be needed whenever the jedi knights are overwhelmed...
But still, it would have been nice if they had asked us first.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

I think the EU could muster the finance and numbers to create a substantial military, one of the biggest in the world.

it does. A lot depends on whether or not France's reducing nuclear stockpile is enough on its own to scare the bad guys away though.

Manach

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So thank you, 'usual left wing suspects'.

... even when they have equated as the "Worst thing ever"[tm] and ramping up the rhetoricial device of "spend money on houses instead" as if there was a form of logical equivalence.

Manach

Aegir wrote: »

it does. A lot depends on whether or not France's reducing nuclear stockpile is enough on its own to scare the bad guys away though.

I think it was in Freedman's book on Deterrence that mentioned that in spite of the French arsenal, its force de frappe, the gross destructive power of that unleashed on the land area Soviet Union was a lot less effective than an equivalent response on Metropolitan France. So unless the US is involved, there is no point in discussing strategic saber rattling as the Russia can shrug this off, France ( and Western Europe) could not.

murphaph

recedite wrote: »

I think the EU could muster the finance and numbers to create a substantial military, one of the biggest in the world.
The interests of the USA and Turkey may not always align with European interests.

I don't see Russia as being any threat to Europe.
It is noticeable that Turkey has co-operated more with Russia recently than it has with the USA.

Nato members are a disparate group. I suspect that in a difficult situation, Nato members might act more according to their own interests than to the exact terms of the Nato treaty.

Regardless of all the above issues and opinions, here in Ireland we still have the issue of the Dail ditching our neutrality and taking us into a military pact, despite the Irish people having previously rejected that idea.

No doubt this new EU confederate army would only be used as a force for good in the world, and these new imperial stormtroopers would only be needed whenever the jedi knights are overwhelmed...
But still, it would have been nice if they had asked us first.

I can agree with most of that but I am not sure I'd write the Russians off just yet. I personally believe they are continually trying to destabilise the EU. I also think we could have had some public debate on the matter but not a referendum. The government are there to govern and make decisions on our behalf.

Honestly I think it's something a lot of people think they have a problem with but can't explain what it is. There are no mass street protests so I don't think the majority really are all that attached to our "neutrality" anyway.

murphthesmurf

murphaph wrote: »

Personally I think NATO is a relic of the aftermath of WWII which served its purpose but should ultimately be replaced by EU members. The EU or even the idea of something like it did not exist when NATO was founded. The EU member states should be able to defend themselves jointly and not rely on US military muscle.

In an ideal world, but no NATO doesn't just mean no USA (the most powerful military force on earth). It also means no Britain.Turkey, Canada. Europe doesn't spend anywhere near enough on defence at the moment, not just training troops. Canada with a 2016 budget of 15.7 billion dollars only ranked as 20th in military power for the same year. Which just shows the amount of spending required. This is why Trump was making a fuss about countries not paying enough into NATO. Can you see Ireland significantly increasing its military budget in the near future? An effective defence force needs fighter jets, bombers, anti air defence, destroyers, submarines, tanks, air and ground transport for thousands of troops, as well as a significant nuclear deterrent. Off the top of my head I think France will be the only European country with nukes once the UK leaves.

murphaph

Manach wrote: »

I think it was in Freedman's book on Deterrence that mentioned that in spite of the French arsenal, its force de frappe, the gross destructive power of that unleashed on the land area Soviet Union was a lot less effective than an equivalent response on Metropolitan France. So unless the US is involved, there is no point in discussing strategic saber rattling as the Russia can shrug this off, France ( and Western Europe) could not.

The question is....can we actually rely on Donald Trump or his advisors who seem quite friendly with Vlad to launch that nuclear strike on Russia if Russia attacks Europe? I'm honestly not sure we can. I'd prefer to rely on ourselves in an EU army to do that. I hope one day that the UK will return to the fold and become a full EU member again in the next decades once Brexit goes pear shaped. The joint French-UK aresenal is still very small but enough to destroy all the major cities in Russia, which is enough of a deterrent I reckon.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

The question is....can we actually rely on Donald Trump or his advisors who seem quite friendly with Vlad to launch that nuclear strike on Russia if Russia attacks Europe? I'm honestly not sure we can. I'd prefer to rely on ourselves in an EU army to do that. I hope one day that the UK will return to the fold and become a full EU member again in the next decades once Brexit goes pear shaped. The joint French-UK aresenal is still very small but enough to destroy all the major cities in Russia, which is enough of a deterrent I reckon.

Good morning!

I'm pretty certain that the UK won't be an EU member again but it can be relied on in supporting European defence. One doesn't need to be a member of the EU to be concerned about European defence and security.

Ireland should have never ratified this through the Dáil, not least if it is planning on remaining neutral. Moreover, the Government knew that this was a key reason why the Irish people voted no to the Lisbon Treaty. It shows that assurances run thin. No public mandate was sought for a big decision that impacts Ireland's military stance.

Trump isn't going to be the President of America forever. America will still play a key role in global security for a long term. Short termism shouldn't be a factor in making long term political decisions.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

The question is....can we actually rely on Donald Trump or his advisors who seem quite friendly with Vlad to launch that nuclear strike on Russia if Russia attacks Europe? I'm honestly not sure we can. I'd prefer to rely on ourselves in an EU army to do that. I hope one day that the UK will return to the fold and become a full EU member again in the next decades once Brexit goes pear shaped. The joint French-UK aresenal is still very small but enough to destroy all the major cities in Russia, which is enough of a deterrent I reckon.

the UK are a NATO country, why would they get involved in a war that had nothing to do with them?

As long as the US are in NATO, then there will be thousands of their troops in Europe, Any attack on europe is a defacto attack on US troops. Take those troops away and you are rel;iant on Trumps good will and lets face it, he'd love nothing more than to see half of europe nuked.

James Brown

Manach wrote: »

... even when they have equated as the "Worst thing ever"[tm] and ramping up the rhetoricial device of "spend money on houses instead" as if there was a form of logical equivalence.

If I had such a low opinion of these types, I'd be more inclined to criticise the 'usual culprits on the right' for not keeping me informed.
If not for the pinkos you might still be in the dark like.

Junkyard Tom

Aegir wrote: »

why?

Because I don't think NATO's an the EU's strategic and defence needs are the same. In fact I'd like the Americans to stay away from Europe altogether and to quit meddling in eastern Europe. WWIII was to be fought in Europe between the Soviets and the US/West. That's history.

The EU should be managing its own affairs with the Russians and the Chinese and stop being the US's strategic vassal region.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Because I don't think NATO's an the EU's strategic and defence needs are the same. In fact I'd like the Americans to stay away from Europe altogether and to quit meddling in eastern Europe. WWIII was to be fought in Europe between the Soviets and the US/West. That's history.

of course it was. What do you think the alternative was, just let them walk through europe and head for the US?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The EU should be managing its own affairs with the Russians and the Chinese and stop being the US's strategic vassal region

the eu does manage its own affairs with Russia and the Chinese

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm pretty certain that the UK won't be an EU member again but it can be relied on in supporting European defence. One doesn't need to be a member of the EU to be concerned about European defence and security.

Ireland should have never ratified this through the Dáil, not least if it is planning on remaining neutral. Moreover, the Government knew that this was a key reason why the Irish people voted no to the Lisbon Treaty. It shows that assurances run thin. No public mandate was sought for a big decision that impacts Ireland's military stance.

Trump isn't going to be the President of America forever. America will still play a key role in global security for a long term. Short termism shouldn't be a factor in making long term political decisions.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Good morning!

The Dail is sovereign to male this decision on behalf of the Irish people. We don't have to micromanage. It's certainly not the EU's fault if that's what you're hinting at.

I am quite sure the UK will be back in the EU in my lifetime. May not even leave or may leave in name only at this stage.

Trump is just the symptom. The cause is the increased nationalism and isolationism of the American people. They don't necessarily want to nuke Moscow because Moscow nuked Berlin. I would not be so sure that they would fulfill their NATO commitments, push come to shove.

brickster69

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Aegir wrote: »

why?

Because I don't think NATO's an the EU's strategic and defence needs are the same. In fact I'd like the Americans to stay away from Europe altogether and to quit meddling in eastern Europe. WWIII was to be fought in Europe between the Soviets and the US/West. That's history.

The EU should be managing its own affairs with the Russians and the Chinese and stop being the US's strategic vassal region.

Who is going to pay the 165 Billion shortfall bill, that the EU countries owe if NATO is ended ? No doubt the members who paid in the full amount all these years would require something for protecting Europe from the Angry Bear.
Also this move no doubt will require UN Security Council approval due to Germany being involved and France having nuclear weapons. Hard to see it not being  vetoed by Russia, USA, China and UK now.

Junkyard Tom

Aegir wrote: »

the eu does manage its own affairs with Russia and the Chinese

Do think Victoria '**** the EU' Nuland believes the EU manages its own affairs in its own back garden?

Do you really think the EU is control of its own affairs?

recedite

murphaph wrote: »

I can agree with most of that but I am not sure I'd write the Russians off just yet. I personally believe they are continually trying to destabilise the EU.

I agree they are constantly trying to reduce cohesion in the EU, mainly because they don't want to have a new military superpower next door. That does not mean they are hostile to "Europe" or to EU member states individually though. Also it is very understandable that they would be concerned about both Nato and EU having expanded eastwards in recent decades.

Anyway, given that many of the other countries involved in PESCO have historically been hostile to Russia, I think we will have to accept that Russia must now target RoI with one or more of its missiles, as part of its overall defense strategy. Despite neither of us having any real quarrel with each other.

murphaph wrote: »

I also think we could have had some public debate on the matter but not a referendum. The government are there to govern and make decisions on our behalf.

Its a bit more serious than that. Research done after the Lisbon 1 refererendum identified 3 main concerns (Irish tax rates, neutrality and abortion) as the reasons for its failure....

...arising from that research, pressure was put on the other EU members to accommodate Irish voters' concerns, in order to allow for a second vote with a better chance of success. A two-day EU summit last month agreed to legally binding guarantees on the application of the Treaty in Ireland.
The summit also agreed to an Irish request that the guarantees also be incorporated as a protocol to the EU treaties.
The guarantees ensure Irish control over tax rates, military neutrality and the Irish Constitution's provisions on social and family law, including the right to life.

If these concerns were important enough at the time to have special EU protocols created, in order to hold the Lisbon referendum a second time, then they can't just be dismissed now.

It may be that people have changed their minds since, and we will find out about the abortion aspect of it via a referendum. And I think our corporation tax rate is still well defended at govt. level.
But to drop neutrality without even an opinion poll is a bit much.

recedite

Imagine this scenario;
Relations between North Korea and USA have deteriorated to the point that the President of the USA announces that military action against NK is imminent. What can NK do to avoid destruction?

Suppose they have hacked into the Russian defense systems and trigger one or more Russian missiles. That in turn triggers a Nato response, which triggers a full Russian nuclear response. Because that is how the MAD doctrine works.

In the ensuing chaos, everybody forgets about NK. Happy days for Kim.

Meanwhile PESCO has also been drawn into it, partly via Nato and partly because all the Russian missiles have been triggered, including those pointed at Europe. Ireland being a PESCO country has at least one city on the target list, presumably that would be Dublin.

Now, I'm not actually in Dublin, but I'm close enough to probably suffer from smoke inhalation if it gets vaporised, so this is not a good scenario for me.

brickster69

murphaph wrote: »

Manach wrote: »

I think it was in Freedman's book on Deterrence that mentioned that in spite of the French arsenal, its force de frappe, the gross destructive power of that unleashed on the land area Soviet Union was a lot less effective than an equivalent response on Metropolitan France. So unless the US is involved, there is no point in discussing strategic saber rattling as the Russia can shrug this off, France ( and Western Europe) could not.

The question is....can we actually rely on Donald Trump or his advisors who seem quite friendly with Vlad to launch that nuclear strike on Russia if Russia attacks Europe? I'm honestly not sure we can. I'd prefer to rely on ourselves in an EU army to do that. I hope one day that the UK will return to the fold and become a full EU member again in the next decades once Brexit goes pear shaped. The joint French-UK aresenal is still very small but enough to destroy all the major cities in Russia, which is enough of a deterrent I reckon.

UK's arsenal is enough to destroy every city in the world with a population over 1.25 million people.

Samaris

Neutrality is not yet dropped. Ireland, along with every other country involved, can choose which missions to be involved with, as we have all along. Ireland chooses peacekeeping and non-combat missions. And frankly, I think it very unlikely that Russia would drop a nuke on us. Our primary defence would probably be mooning it as there is bugger-all else we can do about Russia. They know it, we know it. It would be as pointless as the US nuking Kyrgystan.

Now, there does seem to be a push towards Europe currently. Partly because our "best friend" has just lost its marbles and there is no sense continuing to lean on the UK. We've now seen just how vulnerable our economy is to the UK's decisions abd we should take it as a wake-up call. On the other hand, geographically isolated with a third country physically between us and Europe, it is likely not surprising that our politicians are pushing to ensure Ireland does have a place in the EU27. Our main ally within it was the UK too.

I have my issues with some aspects of the European project, but I ain't buying in to manufactured Euroskepticism.

brickster69

This is not going to end well.

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/941352204740497410

https://twitter.com/hashtag/pesco?lang=en

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Good morning!

The Dail is sovereign to male this decision on behalf of the Irish people. We don't have to micromanage. It's certainly not the EU's fault if that's what you're hinting at.

I am quite sure the UK will be back in the EU in my lifetime. May not even leave or may leave in name only at this stage.

Trump is just the symptom. The cause is the increased nationalism and isolationism of the American people. They don't necessarily want to nuke Moscow because Moscow nuked Berlin. I would not be so sure that they would fulfill their NATO commitments, push come to shove.

Good evening!

This doesn't hold up. Think about it. The Irish people only voted for the Lisbon Treaty the second time on the condition that they wouldn't have to join a European defence force.

Now the Irish Government have used the provisions in the treaty change that the Irish people only approved because they were assured that it wouldn't lead to Irish involvement in a European defence force to hand over control to Brussels to set up a European defence force.

Not consulting the Irish people on a decision like this isn't respecting the conditions by which they voted for Lisbon II. The people should be consulted on every attempt to hand over sovereignty to Brussels.

It makes me very glad that the UK is leaving. There's nothing "manufactured" about being opposed to handing over shed loads of control to the European Union.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Help!!!!

We do not need to join PESCO because who is going to invade us?? No one
The EU was set up so there would be no more wars in Europe so why all of a sudden do we need an EU army
The EU is being set up to turn into another USSR where there will be one dictator president who will tell the smaller countries what to do
There will be 2billion invested into the armed forces while for years soldiers have been struggling to make ends meet

Doltanian

recedite wrote: »

Imagine this scenario;
Relations between North Korea and USA have deteriorated to the point that the President of the USA announces that military action against NK is imminent. What can NK do to avoid destruction?

Suppose they have hacked into the Russian defense systems and trigger one or more Russian missiles. That in turn triggers a Nato response, which triggers a full Russian nuclear response. Because that is how the MAD doctrine works.

In the ensuing chaos, everybody forgets about NK. Happy days for Kim.

Meanwhile PESCO has also been drawn into it, partly via Nato and partly because all the Russian missiles have been triggered, including those pointed at Europe. Ireland being a PESCO country has at least one city on the target list, presumably that would be Dublin.

Now, I'm not actually in Dublin, but I'm close enough to probably suffer from smoke inhalation if it gets vaporised, so this is not a good scenario for me.

Dublin getting Nuked, it would do wonders for the Irish genepool overall. I wish Putin would march the Russians into Germany and we'd be far better off under the Russians than the Germans, they would quickly crush liberalism and leftism for a start.

Help!!!!

recedite wrote: »

Imagine this scenario;
Relations between North Korea and USA have deteriorated to the point that the President of the USA announces that military action against NK is imminent. What can NK do to avoid destruction?

Suppose they have hacked into the Russian defense systems and trigger one or more Russian missiles. That in turn triggers a Nato response, which triggers a full Russian nuclear response. Because that is how the MAD doctrine works.

In the ensuing chaos, everybody forgets about NK. Happy days for Kim.

Meanwhile PESCO has also been drawn into it, partly via Nato and partly because all the Russian missiles have been triggered, including those pointed at Europe. Ireland being a PESCO country has at least one city on the target list, presumably that would be Dublin.

Now, I'm not actually in Dublin, but I'm close enough to probably suffer from smoke inhalation if it gets vaporised, so this is not a good scenario for me.

Exactly Ireland at the moment would be well down the list of countries that would be attacked by a super power

murphthesmurf

recedite wrote: »

Imagine this scenario;
Relations between North Korea and USA have deteriorated to the point that the President of the USA announces that military action against NK is imminent. What can NK do to avoid destruction?

Suppose they have hacked into the Russian defense systems and trigger one or more Russian missiles. That in turn triggers a Nato response, which triggers a full Russian nuclear response. Because that is how the MAD doctrine works.

In the ensuing chaos, everybody forgets about NK. Happy days for Kim.

Meanwhile PESCO has also been drawn into it, partly via Nato and partly because all the Russian missiles have been triggered, including those pointed at Europe. Ireland being a PESCO country has at least one city on the target list, presumably that would be Dublin.

Now, I'm not actually in Dublin, but I'm close enough to probably suffer from smoke inhalation if it gets vaporised, so this is not a good scenario for me.

That escalated quickly. If there was 'a full Russian nuclear response' whether or not one landed in Dublin would make no difference at all. We would all be dead from the radioactive dust cloud that would block out the sun for the next few years. You will be begging for them to drop one more to finish you off quickly.

Harika

Help!!!! wrote: »

We do not need to join PESCO because who is going to invade us?? No one
The EU was set up so there would be no more wars in Europe so why all of a sudden do we need an EU army
The EU is being set up to turn into another USSR where there will be one dictator president who will tell the smaller countries what to do
There will be 2billion invested into the armed forces while for years soldiers have been struggling to make ends meet

"If you want peace, prepare for war" very old proverb. With PESCO it is like with an insurance, you hope you will never need it but if you do need it, you hope you have the best possible coverage.
There are talks about the EU army since decades and since 2007 there are the battle groups operational. Ireland is part of them Btw
And isn't it great that the underfunded Irish defence forces finally are receiving some love again? I read this article that claims that now the homelessness crisis cannot be solved as the EU forces Ireland to spend money on PESCO. Yeah sure, always an excuse.

murphthesmurf

Help!!!! wrote: »

We do not need to join PESCO because who is going to invade us?? No one
The EU was set up so there would be no more wars in Europe so why all of a sudden do we need an EU army
The EU is being set up to turn into another USSR where there will be one dictator president who will tell the smaller countries what to do
There will be 2billion invested into the armed forces while for years soldiers have been struggling to make ends meet

I agree and disagree. The world is in a kind of military stale mate atm, which is good. None of the superpowers can attack one another as it will only lead to mutual destruction. If one side manages to drop only 100 nukes and the other 150 it's irrelevant. Neither country would ever recover from such devastation. Their remaining population would flee to relative safety unable to return for thousands of years. So in such a stale mate there is no need for another army to tip the scales and unsettle the balance. But at the same time can Europe hide behind the US and it's NATO partners indefinitely. Just letting them shoulder all the burden and expense. Can we (Europe) really expect them to protect us forever, free of charge.

Harika

murphthesmurf wrote: »

That escalated quickly. If there was 'a full Russian nuclear response' whether or not one landed in Dublin would make no difference at all. We would all be dead from the radioactive dust cloud that would block out the sun for the next few years. You will be begging for them to drop one more to finish you off quickly.

You are lucky, US and Russia reduced their bombs to a level so we would not experience a nuclear winter.
https://www.quora.com/In-a-total-nuclear-exchange-where-the-entire-worlds-arsenals-are-used-how-long-would-the-nuclear-winter-last-and-would-we-survive/answer/Allen-E-Hall-2?share=9f9879b7&srid=nT8x

Anyway I don't think one bomb would be enough as Cork would take over. So two are needed at least to break the Irish.

Help!!!!

Harika wrote: »

"If you want peace, prepare for war" very old proverb. With PESCO it is like with an insurance, you hope you will never need it but if you do need it, you hope you have the best possible coverage.
There are talks about the EU army since decades and since 2007 there are the battle groups operational. Ireland is part of them Btw
And isn't it great that the underfunded Irish defence forces finally are receiving some love again? I read this article that claims that now the homelessness crisis cannot be solved as the EU forces Ireland to spend money on PESCO. Yeah sure, always an excuse.

Its another example of how much the people of Ireland matter to FF/FG. All those DF could have died for all they cared but now its got to do with the EU they finally found some funding.
We do not need an insurance all we need to do is close our borders because the only threat to Europe is from the thousands of ISIS fighters that are coming back

Help!!!!

murphthesmurf wrote: »

I agree and disagree. The world is in a kind of military stale mate atm, which is good. None of the superpowers can attack one another as it will only lead to mutual destruction. If one side manages to drop only 100 nukes and the other 150 it's irrelevant. Neither country would ever recover from such devastation. Their remaining population would flee to relative safety unable to return for thousands of years. So in such a stale mate there is no need for another army to tip the scales and unsettle the balance. But at the same time can Europe hide behind the US and it's NATO partners indefinitely. Just letting them shoulder all the burden and expense. Can we (Europe) really expect them to protect us forever, free of charge.

The only threat Europe faces is from within, thousands of ISIS fighters returning, jihadi terror cells & thousands of unknown migrants from Africa/ME/Asia.

jm08

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

This doesn't hold up. Think about it. The Irish people only voted for the Lisbon Treaty the second time on the condition that they wouldn't have to join a European defence force.

As far as I can recall from the Treaty, Declan Ganley & Co. were claiming that there would be conscription if Ireland signed the Lisbon Treaty. The assurances were about retaining the right to not be involved if we didn't want to be and I think that is still the case and the triple lock is still in place.

murphthesmurf

Help!!!! wrote: »

The only threat Europe faces is from within, thousands of ISIS fighters returning, jihadi terror cells & thousands of unknown migrants from Africa/ME/Asia.

That is true also, that would be a more immediate danger. But who knows what lies ahead, in ten or 15 yrs. The world can change, and it takes yrs to build up a decent army. No good waiting until its really needed as it will be too late.

jm08

brickster69 wrote: »

Who is going to pay the 165 Billion shortfall bill, that the EU countries owe if NATO is ended ? No doubt the members who paid in the full amount all these years would require something for protecting Europe from the Angry Bear.
Also this move no doubt will require UN Security Council approval due to Germany being involved and France having nuclear weapons. Hard to see it not being vetoed by Russia, USA, China and UK now.

It doesn't work like that. NATO countries spend a percentage of their GDP on their own defence and security, they only pay a small fee to NATO which is less than 1% of NATO's budget. There is an agreement between NATO countries that they will spend 2% of their GDP by 2024.

This will explain it for you.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-funding-explained-trump/index.html

Vronsky

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

This doesn't hold up. Think about it. The Irish people only voted for the Lisbon Treaty the second time on the condition that they wouldn't have to join a European defence force.

Now the Irish Government have used the provisions in the treaty change that the Irish people only approved because they were assured that it wouldn't lead to Irish involvement in a European defence force to hand over control to Brussels to set up a European defence force.

Not consulting the Irish people on a decision like this isn't respecting the conditions by which they voted for Lisbon II. The people should be consulted on every attempt to hand over sovereignty to Brussels.

It makes me very glad that the UK is leaving. There's nothing "manufactured" about being opposed to handing over shed loads of control to the European Union.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

As usual when it comes to your posts, there are a couple of things we need to put straight.

1. There is no transfer of Irish sovereignty since the Irish Government retains complete and total control over how it chooses to use it's armed forces

2. Pesco is largely a reaction to Brexit and Trump's America. In the aftermath of the second would war a grand bargain was essentially struck between Western Europe on one side and the UK and USA on the other. Essentially the UK USA alliance would allow the Western European states to develop into social democratic states and would offer them protection. In exchange the WE states would not develop militaries of previous strength and would depend on UK USA. This dependence gives the UK USA a degree of control over Europe, and this is the reason the UK opposed EU military co operation as it lessened it's influence. The grand bargain had held up for 65 odd years until Trump questioned the USAs commitment to NATO and the UK proved itself to be an unreliable partner.

Since you love banging on about sovereignty, one could argue that further military co-operation is about Europe retaking control of it's own defence. It's not a loss of sovereignty, but a gain.

solodeogloria

Vronsky wrote: »

As usual when it comes to your posts, there are a couple of things we need to put straight.

1. There is no transfer of Irish sovereignty since the Irish Government retains complete and total control over how it chooses to use it's armed forces

2. Pesco is largely a reaction to Brexit and Trump's America. In the aftermath of the second would war a grand bargain was essentially struck between Western Europe on one side and the UK and USA on the other. Essentially the UK USA alliance would allow the Western European states to develop into social democratic states and would offer them protection. In exchange the WE states would not develop militaries of previous strength and would depend on UK USA. This dependence gives the UK USA a degree of control over Europe, and this is the reason the UK opposed EU military co operation as it lessened it's influence. The grand bargain had held up for 65 odd years until Trump questioned the USAs commitment to NATO and the UK proved itself to be an unreliable partner.

Since you love banging on about sovereignty, one could argue that further military co-operation is about Europe retaking control of it's own defence. It's not a loss of sovereignty, but a gain.

Good morning!

Pooling resources means losing control of the resources you have.

Member states sign up to a set of commitments set by the EU to increase defence funding amongst other things. That is a loss of control of fiscal policy.

The commitments are outlined in Articles 1 and 2 of PESCO (or Protocol 10 in Article 42 of TFEU)

Article 1
The permanent structured cooperation referred to in Article 42(6) of the Treaty on European Union shall be open to any Member State which undertakes, from the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, to:
(a)
proceed more intensively to develop its defence capacities through the development of its national contributions and participation, where appropriate, in multinational forces, in the main European equipment programmes, and in the activity of the Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (European Defence Agency), and
(b)
have the capacity to supply by 2010 at the latest, either at national level or as a component of multinational force groups, targeted combat units for the missions planned, structured at a tactical level as a battle group, with support elements including transport and logistics, capable of carrying out the tasks referred to in Article 43 of the Treaty on European Union, within a period of five to 30 days, in particular in response to requests from the United Nations Organisation, and which can be sustained for an initial period of 30 days and be extended up to at least 120 days.
Article 2
To achieve the objectives laid down in Article 1, Member States participating in permanent structured cooperation shall undertake to:
(a)
cooperate, as from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, with a view to achieving approved objectives concerning the level of investment expenditure on defence equipment, and regularly review these objectives, in the light of the security environment and of the Union's international responsibilities;
(b)
bring their defence apparatus into line with each other as far as possible, particularly by harmonising the identification of their military needs, by pooling and, where appropriate, specialising their defence means and capabilities, and by encouraging cooperation in the fields of training and logistics;
(c)
take concrete measures to enhance the availability, interoperability, flexibility and deployability of their forces, in particular by identifying common objectives regarding the commitment of forces, including possibly reviewing their national decision-making procedures;
(d)
work together to ensure that they take the necessary measures to make good, including through multinational approaches, and without prejudice to undertakings in this regard within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the shortfalls perceived in the framework of the ‘Capability Development Mechanism’;
(e)
take part, where appropriate, in the development of major joint or European equipment programmes in the framework of the European Defence Agency.

This requires signing up to a common defence policy. Another loss of control as this policy will be determined by the European Union and not the Irish state.

Huge swathes of particular military decisions will be made by the European Defence Agency:

1. The European Defence Agency referred to in Article 42(3), subject to the authority of the Council, shall have as its task to:
(a)
contribute to identifying the Member States' military capability objectives and evaluating observance of the capability commitments given by the Member States;
(b)
promote harmonisation of operational needs and adoption of effective, compatible procurement methods;
(c)
propose multilateral projects to fulfil the objectives in terms of military capabilities, ensure coordination of the programmes implemented by the Member States and management of specific cooperation programmes;
(d)
support defence technology research, and coordinate and plan joint research activities and the study of technical solutions meeting future operational needs;
(e)
contribute to identifying and, if necessary, implementing any useful measure for strengthening the industrial and technological base of the defence sector and for improving the effectiveness of military expenditure.

This is a loss of control. It isn't gaining sovereignty all dressed up in the name of saving money!

If you want to see the dearth of quality debate in the Dáil you can watch the debate here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_msbVyluc7Q

I also don't see how this is constitutional:

Article 24.4.9 Irish Constutution wrote:

9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State.

Why are we adopting Article 42 provisions when the Irish Constitution prohibits doing so? This should be challenged and struck down.

This isn't a Sleeping Beauty as Juncker puts it but a Count Dracula.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

brickster69

Obviously this is not anything to do with Brexit but it was a concern among voters of the referendum. Constantly the remain side argued that there were no plans for an EU Army. It is far away from that but this certainly is the first steps towards.
Love or hate Farage his speech to the EU a few years ago spoke some truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI5_pMvLZd8

recedite

Harika wrote: »

You are lucky, US and Russia reduced their bombs to a level so we would not experience a nuclear winter.
https://www.quora.com/In-a-total-nuclear-exchange-where-the-entire-worlds-arsenals-are-used-how-long-would-the-nuclear-winter-last-and-would-we-survive/answer/Allen-E-Hall-2?share=9f9879b7&srid=nT8x

Anyway I don't think one bomb would be enough as Cork would take over. So two are needed at least to break the Irish.

Yes, and with a bit of luck and our prevailing southwesterly winds, I'd expect most of the country to escape the worst effects.
The capital city of every country signing up to PESCO automatically makes itself a target though.

I hadn't factored in the Cork menace. The reds could lose the run of themselves and take over the remainder of the country alright. The Guinness would run out fairly quickly and Beamish would become the national drink. We'd just have to learn to live with it :pac:

Seriously though, how did the Dail manage to sign us up for something unconstitutional?

9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State.