PESCO; Ireland's military pact

Vronsky

solodeogloria wrote: »

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)

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:


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:


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

There is nowhere in the commitments that state that Ireland will have to deploy it's armed forces without the consent of the Irish Government. Committing to interoperability of capability is not a loss of sovereignty.

While PESCO is not a common defence, it is the start of Europe coming out from under the UK USA defensive umbrella over which European countries had no control.

You are free however to take a case to the supreme court if you feel it's unconstitutional if you so desire.

solodeogloria

Vronsky wrote: »

There is nowhere in the commitments that state that Ireland will have to deploy it's armed forces without the consent of the Irish Government. Committing to interoperability of capability is not a loss of sovereignty.

While PESCO is not a common defence, it is the start of Europe coming out from under the UK USA defensive umbrella over which European countries had no control.

You are free however to take a case to the supreme court if you feel it's unconstitutional if you so desire.

Good morning!

Admittedly I'm hoping someone else does. I don't have the cash for it.

I don't see why this doesn't concern you. Even if I supported PESCO and I certainly don't - it would still concern me if the Government weren't respecting the Constitution and the due process that is required to modify it or to pass legislation that is in contrary to it.

If it is constitutional can you explain how?

If it isn't constitutional why doesn't this worry you? Do you think it's acceptable for a Government to ignore the Constitution and the will of the people when it doesn't suit them?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Help!!!!

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.

If Juncker gets his way to be the only president of the EU he will have powers to over ride veto's & do you think anyone from FF/FG/SF are strong enough to stand up to the EU. They will do whatever the EU tells them as long as they get their 30 pieces of silver

Harika

Help!!!! wrote: »

If Juncker gets his way to be the only president of the EU he will have powers to over ride veto's & do you think anyone from FF/FG/SF are strong enough to stand up to the EU. They will do whatever the EU tells them as long as they get their 30 pieces of silver

I don’t think France, Germany or any other European country would give a president such powers. But this is one of the most important questions for the European army. Who is in charge? Who gives orders and so on. That's why we haven't seen an European army and won't see a real one any time soon.

Help!!!!

Harika wrote: »

I don’t think France, Germany or any other European country would give a president such powers. But this is one of the most important questions for the European army. Who is in charge? Who gives orders and so on. That's why we haven't seen an European army and won't see a real one any time soon.

The EU will be set up to benefit Germany & France, Juncker will be the first president because this has probably been agreed with the 2 countries. Then its Germany & France to rule Europe & they get their EU army in case the smaller countries complain & America wants to help
Might seem far fetched but its the way its heading

Donnielighto

Help!!!! wrote: »

If Juncker gets his way to be the only president of the EU he will have powers to over ride veto's & do you think anyone from FF/FG/SF are strong enough to stand up to the EU. They will do whatever the EU tells them as long as they get their 30 pieces of silver

Where is that coming from? There is no rubicon to cross

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

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)

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:


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:


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

So the UK will withdraw from NATO and regain control of all that sovereignty it ceded? You are some man for the double standards.

Donnielighto

Help!!!! wrote: »

The EU will be set up to benefit Germany & France, Juncker will be the first president because this has probably been agreed with the 2 countries. Then its Germany & France to rule Europe & they get their EU army in case the smaller countries complain & America wants to help
Might seem far fetched but its the way its heading

Its populations that will rule, same as Dublin makes more decisions here than Leitrim. Should Leitrim leave the Republic as it is dictated to by Dublin? Does tubbercurry then leave Leitrim since carrick is the new power?

Just being "x"ish and saying that we look after our own so won't play with others and that's borderline racist in it's origins imo.

On the neutrality stuff, any military intervention than isn't self defence is taking a side, so what's the difference between eu soldiers and the un peacekeepers other than the un is a bigger club?

Help!!!!

Donnielighto wrote: »

Its populations that will rule, same as Dublin makes more decisions here than Leitrim. Should Leitrim leave the Republic as it is dictated to by Dublin? Does tubbercurry then leave Leitrim since carrick is the new power?

Just being "x"ish and saying that we look after our own so won't play with others and that's borderline racist in it's origins imo.

On the neutrality stuff, any military intervention than isn't self defence is taking a side, so what's the difference between eu soldiers and the un peacekeepers other than the un is a bigger club?

The EU was set up to have one common market & that there would be no more wars in Europe not for it to benefit only 2 countries.
As for being Xish racist that is your opinion but I would prefer our politicians looked after who was here rather than being told what to do by the EU
If you dont understand the difference between EU soldiers & UN peacekeepers maybe theres a clue in the names;)

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

So the UK will withdraw from NATO and regain control of all that sovereignty it ceded? You are some man for the double standards.

Good afternoon!

Ireland explicitly voted this into their constitution. Britain didn't.

Ireland is a neutral country and Britain isn't.

The question of conditionality is important irrespective of whether or not you agree with PESCO. If this is unconstitutional the Government shouldn't be passing this in the Dáil but they should be putting this to the Irish people.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

Help!!!! wrote: »

The EU was set up to have one common market & that there would be no more wars in Europe not for it to benefit only 2 countries.
As for being Xish racist that is your opinion but I would prefer our politicians looked after who was here rather than being told what to do by the EU
If you dont understand the difference between EU soldiers & UN peacekeepers maybe theres a clue in the names;)

Cut out the snide tone. Please read the charter before posting again, especially the portion about posting links.

AnGaelach

I love that we've signed it and now we have a binding commitment to not only increase our defence budget to 2% (from a low of like 0.3%) but we've promised to spend a greater proportion of that budget on equipment procurement.

My optimism is tinged with cynicism and I fully expect this to be a paper exercise with no real tangible increase in spending.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Ireland explicitly voted this into their constitution. Britain didn't.

Ireland is a neutral country and Britain isn't.

The question of conditionality is important irrespective of whether or not you agree with PESCO. If this is unconstitutional the Government shouldn't be passing this in the Dáil but they should be putting this to the Irish people.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Your beef was that it ceded a bunch of sovereignty to a supranational organisation from the nation state. Exactly like NATO. Make up your mind what bothers you because from where I'm looking it seems your position on everything is "UK good, EU bad".

AnGaelach

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Ireland explicitly voted this into their constitution. Britain didn't.

Ireland is a neutral country and Britain isn't.

The question of conditionality is important irrespective of whether or not you agree with PESCO. If this is unconstitutional the Government shouldn't be passing this in the Dáil but they should be putting this to the Irish people.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

What are you talking about? There's nothing in Bunreacht na hÉireann which stipulates we're a neutral country. It has merely been Executive policy.

The only part of our Constitution that prohibits us from taking part in military pacts is the part of the Constitution which relates to a common defence policy initiated by the European Commission.

There's nothing stopping us joining NATO or pursuing bilateral defence agreements with Europeans outside of the EU structure.

AnGaelach

murphthesmurf wrote: »

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.

The best analogy to explain this is; it's always better to already have toilet paper and not need it, than to need toilet paper and not have it.

AnGaelach

Harika wrote: »

I don’t think France, Germany or any other European country would give a president such powers. But this is one of the most important questions for the European army. Who is in charge? Who gives orders and so on. That's why we haven't seen an European army and won't see a real one any time soon.

I don't think centralising control over all aspects of defence will be the way Europe goes. There's significant variation in language use, to the point it's unlikely they'll all use the same language.

Rather, I'd think that the Member States will work together collectively to strengthen themselves - EU forces will probably be limited to the Battlegroup template (if not a little larger) with a lead country and partners taking rotations to act as crisis/response forces. Macron's proposal to create a rapid reaction force won't likely have soldiers trained and equipment procured by the EU itself, but will consist of national forces acting with the backing and funding of other European nations.

solodeogloria

AnGaelach wrote: »

What are you talking about? There's nothing in Bunreacht na hÉireann which stipulates we're a neutral country. It has merely been Executive policy.

The only part of our Constitution that prohibits us from taking part in military pacts is the part of the Constitution which relates to a common defence policy initiated by the European Commission.

There's nothing stopping us joining NATO or pursuing bilateral defence agreements with Europeans outside of the EU structure.

Good afternoon!

Article 29.4.9 says that Ireland shouldn't take part in a common European defence force under Article 42 of TFEU.

The Dáil has just ratified agreement to being a part of a European defence force under Article 42 of TFEU without prior consultation of the Irish people.

How is that constitutional? This should concern us.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

AnGaelach

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Article 29.4.9 says that Ireland shouldn't take part in a common European defence force under Article 42 of TFEU.

Actually, what it says is that we won't take part in common defence proposals where it concerns the defence of the State, not that we can never have common co-operation on matters of defence.

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.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Dáil has just ratified agreement to being a part of a European defence force under Article 42 of TFEU without prior consultation of the Irish people.

How is that constitutional? This should concern us.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Because PESCO isn't a common defence structure. Nothing compels us to do things we wish not to do. As such, it falls to the Executive to exercise (on approval by the Oireachtas).

29.4.2 wrote:

2° For the purpose of the exercise of any executive function of the State in or in connection with its external relations, the Government may to such extent and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be determined by law, avail of or adopt any organ, instrument, or method of procedure used or adopted for the like purpose by the members of any group or league of nations with which the State is or becomes associated for the purpose of international co-operation in matters of common concern.

And

29.7.1 wrote:

7° State may exercise the options or discretions—
i) to which Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union relating to enhanced cooperation applies

[...]

but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

That's why we needed a Dáil vote before we could sign it.

Creol1

What is and isn't constitutional isn't something that can be determined one way or another just by a textual analysis, because the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional.

It will be interesting to see if this does come to be constitutionally challenged.

AnGaelach

Creol1 wrote: »

What is and isn't constitutional isn't something that can be determined one way or another just by a textual analysis, because the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional.

... Yes it can.

The law also has the presumption of Constitutionality meaning that unless it's proved unconstitutional, then it is constitutional. Like "innocent until proven guilty".

Creol1 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if this does come to be constitutionally challenged. There is also the possibility that the President could refer it, and in my view that is a very real possibility considering that Michael D. Higgins was stridently anti-war and opposed to EU militarisation when he was the Labour Party's Foreign Affairs spokesman.

Of course it could be challenged, but a challenge is unlikely to be successful and it'd be expensive. I don't think Michael D would refer it to the Courts, because doing so would mean that its constitutionality can never again be questioned - if an event should arise in the future which makes clear that it is unconstitutional, it can't be removed without a referendum on it.

Creol1

AnGaelach wrote: »

... Yes it can.

The law also has the presumption of Constitutionality meaning that unless it's proved unconstitutional, then it is constitutional. Like "innocent until proven guilty".

That doesn't alter the fact that constitutionality is determined by the Supreme Court and cannot be decided upon merely by textual analysis.

AnGaelach

Creol1 wrote: »

That doesn't alter the fact that constitutionality is determined by the Supreme Court and cannot be decided upon merely by textual analysis.

You're wrong, I've explained to you why. Laws are presumed to be constitutional until they're proven not to be, and nothing in the proposal indicates it to be anything unconstitutional.

Creol1

AnGaelach wrote: »

You're wrong, I've explained to you why. Laws are presumed to be constitutional until they're proven not to be, and nothing in the proposal indicates it to be anything unconstitutional.

I never said laws weren't presumed to be constitutional. I said that (A) you can't establish whether something is constitutional simply by looking at the text; (B) it is the Supreme Court who is the arbiter.

If I am wrong in these claims then you need to explain:

A. How simply looking at the text of the Constitution is sufficient to establish whether something is constitutional;
B. Who has the power to overrule the Supreme Court on questions of constitutionality.

AnGaelach

Creol1 wrote: »

I never said laws weren't presumed to be constitutional. I said that (A) you can't establish whether something is constitutional simply by looking at the text; (B) it is the Supreme Court who is the arbiter.

If I am wrong in these claims then you need to explain:

A. How simply looking at the text of the Constitution is sufficient to establish whether something is constitutional;

When something is presumed to be constitutional, it is constitutional until proved otherwise. Hence the "innocent until proven guilty" analogy - a person doesn't exist in a state of limbo where they're neither innocent or guilty until one is proven, nor does the law exist in a state of limbo where it's neither constitutional nor unconstitutional until proved otherwise. It is constitutional until proved not to be.

You simply re-stating what you've said already, after being given an answer, isn't going to change the facts. Yes, the Supreme Court arbitrate on what is constitutional and what isn't - but since the case hasn't been brought to them, we can call it and presume it to be constitutional.

Creol1 wrote: »

B. Who has the power to overrule the Supreme Court on questions of constitutionality.

Just in case it is of interest to you, but the President actually has the power to refer bills not only to the SC but also to the people if a sufficiently high number of TDs/Seanadoirí petition him to do so (I believe it has to be 2/3rds of the Dáil and 1/2 the Seanad) - it's because the will of the people reigns supreme in Ireland, so the Court's interpretation matters little in that circumstance.

It's obviously never been done before, because the party system makes it unlikely a bill would ever pass in the first place if it faced such enormous opposition in the Dáil.

solodeogloria

AnGaelach wrote: »

Actually, what it says is that we won't take part in common defence proposals where it concerns the defence of the State, not that we can never have common co-operation on matters of defence.

Because PESCO isn't a common defence structure. Nothing compels us to do things we wish not to do. As such, it falls to the Executive to exercise (on approval by the Oireachtas).

And

That's why we needed a Dáil vote before we could sign it.

Good evening!

With all due respect Article 29.4.9 explicitly prohibits implementing Article 42 of TFEU. Article 42 of TFEU is the provision for PESCO.

PESCO provides for common defence co-operation. Ireland has agreed to cooperate in common European defence by ratifying PESCO in the Dáil.

29.4.2 doesn't nullify 29.4.9. 29.4.9 was inserted into the Constitution for this very reason, to prevent Ireland implementing provisions in Article 42 of TFEU. Yet, Ireland is implementing Article 42 of TFEU.

29.7.1 also doesn't refer to Article 42, it refers to Article 20 of TFEU which refers to EU citizenship, protocol 19 in respect to opting out of Schengen and opt outs in respect to security and justice under protocol 21. It doesn't permit Ireland to opt into Article 42 of TFEU without regard for 29.4.9 of the Constitution.

The idea that 29.4.9 can simply be ignored at will doesn't make one iota of sense. The vote in the Dáil was about implementing Article 42 of TFEU which is prohibited in the constitution.

This needs to be tested in court and I'm hoping it is.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

AnGaelach

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

With all due respect Article 29.4.9 explicitly prohibits implementing Article 42 of TFEU. Article 42 of TFEU is the provision for PESCO.

PESCO provides for common defence co-operation. Ireland has agreed to cooperate in common European defence by ratifying PESCO in the Dáil.

No. The Article in question prohibits the pursuance of "common defence" where the proposal "would include the State". The rest of your post is based on a faulty understanding of the Article in the Constitution with issues I've already addressed.

solodeogloria

AnGaelach wrote: »

No. The Article in question prohibits the pursuance of "common defence" where the proposal "would include the State". The rest of your post is based on a faulty understanding of the Article in the Constitution with issues I've already addressed.

Good evening!

Pooling military resources, and operating in common European defence projects is a pursuance of "common defence".

This is what Ireland has signed up to even on a minimised basis.

Implementing Article 42 in part without consulting the Irish people seems to be in violation of the Constitution.

This needs a day in court.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Pooling military resources, and operating in common European defence projects is a pursuance of "common defence".

This is what Ireland has signed up to even on a minimised basis.

Implementing Article 42 in part without consulting the Irish people seems to be in violation of the Constitution.

This needs a day in court.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Would you have a problem with all this if it was NATO or is it just because it's the EU you have such a bee in your bonnet about it?

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Would you have a problem with all this if it was NATO or is it just because it's the EU you have such a bee in your bonnet about it?

Good evening!

Admittedly I don't think Ireland should join NATO either unless the Irish people desired it by a democratic referendum.

The creeping loss of more and more and more control by the EU is one of the reasons why I'm a Eurosceptic. The EU has taken too much control. It's why I wouldn't recommend the UK rejoin.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Snickers Man

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.

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

Nail on the head.

NATO has been obsolete since the crumbling of the Berlin Wall and with it the Warsaw Pact. Heck, most of the former members of the Warsaw pact are now IN NATO!!

The strategic situation has changed. NATO is being dismantled from within: the major European powers want a Euro-centric defence policy and why not; America wants a reduced commitment to Europe. These forces are acting in unison to dismantle NATO.

The lynch pin holding NATO together has been Britain, which has always been resistent to tighter European military integration, arguing instead that NATO should be the focus of military co-operation making all other alliances between EU member states superfluous.

In March 2019, that lynch pin pops out of the European decision-making process. (Well OK, maybe after another year or so's transition but it's popping out regardless)

America will soon have a much better strategic arrangement for itself in the Europe/Middle East region: two bellicose nuclear armed allies (Britain and Israel) both of whom are becoming increasingly estranged from their neighbours and both UTTERLY DEPENDENT on the US for their security. And more than happy to be so.

The implications for Ireland are huge: do we join this aggressive, assertive alliance of fossil fuel energy exporters and colonists with their xenophobic attitudes and blind faith in the destiny of the "English speaking peoples" to rule the world, or do we throw in our lot with Europe?

Both entities have their track records. We starved under Britain; we flourished under Europe.

I really don't think the old option of pretending to be neutral can fly any more. We only have bad choices.

AnGaelach

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Pooling military resources, and operating in common European defence projects is a pursuance of "common defence".

This is what Ireland has signed up to even on a minimised basis.

Implementing Article 42 in part without consulting the Irish people seems to be in violation of the Constitution.

This needs a day in court.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No, we choose what areas we sign up to. PESCO does not contain mutual defence, nor does it transfer sovereignty to the EU. You are simply re-stating something that isn't true.

Junkyard Tom

Snickers Man wrote: »

The implications for Ireland are huge: do we join this aggressive, assertive alliance of fossil fuel energy exporters and colonists with their xenophobic attitudes and blind faith in the destiny of the "English speaking peoples" to rule the world..

Not a hope.

or do we throw in our lot with Europe?

Not yet.

I really don't think the old option of pretending to be neutral can fly any more.

We need to remain neutral while Britain has jurisdiction of the northeast. When Britain loses its toe-hold in Ireland we should drop the pretence of neutrality and get fully on board with European security arrangements as it would only benefit us as regards internal and external stability.

recedite

AnGaelach wrote: »

No. The Article in question prohibits the pursuance of "common defence" where the proposal "would include the State". The rest of your post is based on a faulty understanding of the Article in the Constitution with issues I've already addressed.

I find it bizarre that people are claiming PESCO is not a common defence pact. What do you think it is then, a paintball club?

I see the mainstream papers are starting to cop on to this story now. from the indo...

In its foundation documents, PESCO is described a crucial step towards strengthening a "common defence policy".

PESCO was originally envisaged as part of the EU's Lisbon Treaty but it has not been activated until now.


Not surprisingly, Jean-Claude Juncker, the man who favours an EU army, was cock-a-hoop this week, and said of the new defence organisation: "She is awake, the Sleeping Beauty of the Lisbon Treaty."
Juncker said member states, by signing up, were laying the foundations for a "European Defence Union".

Not only is this "a defence pact", but it is the exact defence pact as mentioned in the Lisbon treaty that gave rise to that Article in our Constitution in the first place. So that Article was specifically put into our Constitution to stop any future govt. signing us up for this pact.

Which, oddly enough, is exactly what they have just done.

AnGaelach

recedite wrote: »

I find it bizarre that people are claiming PESCO is not a common defence pact. What do you think it is then, a paintball club?

I see the mainstream papers are starting to cop on to this story now. from the indo...

Not only is this "a defence pact", but it is the exact defence pact as mentioned in the Lisbon treaty that gave rise to that Article in our Constitution in the first place. So that Article was specifically put into our Constitution to stop any future govt. signing us up for this pact.

Which, oddly enough, is exactly what they have just done.

A "defence pact" does not have any Constitutional requirement to satisfy. The Article clearly delineates between general defence policies (which the Constitution explicitly allows for under "enhanced co-operation") and a common policy which includes the State. The defence structure doesn't have any basis for established common defence (whether the Eurofederalists believe it to be the first step towards it or not is irrelevant), it is procurement of weapons and addressing areas of strategic concern with regards to equipment, training and R&D. No where does it stipulate that we must defend other EU nations, nor that they must defend us.

recedite

AnGaelach wrote: »

No where does it stipulate that we must defend other EU nations, nor that they must defend us.

I see your point here, and its very difficult to argue either for or against it because PESCO, like Brexit, is essentially a process and not a precise treaty with all the parameters clearly laid out.
Here is the PESCO notification document.
Going on the established EU principles of solidarity, I don't see how any member state which has willingly signed up to it could reasonably say they were not committing themselves to a common defence pact.

PESCO wrote:

PESCO is an ambitious, binding and inclusive European legal framework for investments in the security and defence of the EU’s territory and its citizens.

It's interesting that we will now be required to come up a national implementation plan, including among other things, the increase in defence spending to 2% of our national budget.

PESCO wrote:

To demonstrate the capability and willingness of each participating Member State to fulfill agreed commitments, they commit to submit before the adoption of the Council decision establishing PESCO, a national Implementation Plan outlining their ability how to meet the
binding commitments. As a matter of transparency, access to those Implementation Plans will be granted to all participating Member States.

Some of the wording seems deliberately designed to be interpretable both ways, in order to please everybody...

PESCO wrote:

PESCO is a crucial step towards strengthening the common defence policy. It could be an element of a possible development towards a common defence

So it strengthens a common defence policy that does not yet exist?

Malta remains unconvinced.

Malta wrote:

Malta will choose prudence and wait to see how the Permanent Structured Cooperation in Defence (PESCO) structure develops before joining, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat told the European Council on Friday.

Muscat said PESCO membership for Malta could potentially conflict with the country’s constitutional neutrality.

If we assume that some of these PESCO members are going to have missile systems etc. pointed at Russia, then we also have to assume that Russia has missiles pointed at all PESCO members.

So there are two main tests as to whether this has violated our historic "constitutionally neutral" status.
1. Ask the Supreme Court whether this is unconstitutional.
2. Ask Putin whether he is now aiming any missiles towards Dublin.

Of course, if you don't ask the question, you don't have to hear to the answer. Which may be the more comfortable option.

Larbre34

I must say I have no difficulty with any of this. A Republic worth its name ought be able to defend itself in any eventuality. Regardless of the threat estimate, this is a more volatile world than at any time in 80 years, and currently we could not.

I welcome any development that sees us emerge from under the benign defence umbrella of the UK (Air and Sea reaction capability), a reality which has over a long history made true nationalists in this Country squirm. It is right that we should seek common ground, inter-operability, and economies of scale for procurement with like-minded nations across Europe. This adds to our knowledge, our contribution, our security, our control, our diversity and our progression for our defence forces and as a Country. Quite apart from the fact that we have benefitted immensely from Europe as a project over the last 45 years and yet not done our bit to bolster it and protect it physically.

2% of our budget over the next few years will be about €1.1 billion, or about what we were spending before the crash, it is only right than including the restoration of decent pay to our servicemen and women we should return to this level.

Manic Moran

After reading through the actual documentation (not the fact sheet), I don’t see anything in PESCO which affects Irish sovereignty or control of its military. It contains a whole list of things which will allow the various EU militaries to work better together, varying from reducing paperwork requirements to move through other countries to acquiring common IFVs (good luck on that one. No attempt at a common multinational design has worked yet). However, although this all lays the groundwork for Irish forces to work better with EU forces if the Irish choose to actually go, I see not one word in the documentation mandating that the Irish Forces actually conduct operations without the support of the Irish State. Or Swedish, as another obvious neutral power partaking in PESCO.

In other words, I see no Constitutional issues, and would be curious to someone point out to any verbiage in the Council decision ( http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/32000/st14866en17.pdf ) or list of projects ( http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/32079/pesco-overview-of-first-collaborative-of-projects-for-press.pdf ) which counters this.

recedite

Manic Moran wrote: »

After reading through the actual documentation (not the fact sheet), I don’t see anything in PESCO which affects Irish sovereignty or control of its military. It contains a whole list of things.

Fair play to you for finding it, and reading it. Not easy.
If you were in Ireland, I'd say you might possibly be the only person in the country who has read the detail. That's the real problem here; no national debate before we signed up to it.
I agree there is nothing concrete (yet) requiring us to go to war whenever our co-PESCO buddies get into a fight. But this is a process, not a treaty, and that is what lies at the end of the process.

AnGaelach

Larbre34 wrote: »

I must say I have no difficulty with any of this. A Republic worth its name ought be able to defend itself in any eventuality. Regardless of the threat estimate, this is a more volatile world than at any time in 80 years, and currently we could not.

I welcome any development that sees us emerge from under the benign defence umbrella of the UK (Air and Sea reaction capability), a reality which has over a long history made true nationalists in this Country squirm. It is right that we should seek common ground, inter-operability, and economies of scale for procurement with like-minded nations across Europe. This adds to our knowledge, our contribution, our security, our control, our diversity and our progression for our defence forces and as a Country. Quite apart from the fact that we have benefitted immensely from Europe as a project over the last 45 years and yet not done our bit to bolster it and protect it physically.

2% of our budget over the next few years will be about €1.1 billion, or about what we were spending before the crash, it is only right than including the restoration of decent pay to our servicemen and women we should return to this level.

It's not 2% of the budget, it's 2% of GDP that's the NATO recommendation (and the same requirement PESCO is trying to reach). That's closer to about €6 billion, although with the MNCs which distort our economic output presumably we'd probably be needing to spend significantly less than that at maybe 2 or 3 billion.

Which is still an enormous sum of cash, I'm quite sure it's more than the Defence Forces would've ever seen before. But it means we could maintain a properly equipped and funded military, rather than the coast-guard/civil-defence-on-steroids that politicians currently seem to think is fine.

Manic Moran

recedite wrote: »

If you were in Ireland, I'd say you might possibly be the only person in the country who has read the detail.

I'm in Clonskeagh, South Dublin. Granted, only here for the Christmas holidays with the family...

recedite

Manic Moran wrote: »

list of projects ( http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/32079/pesco-overview-of-first-collaborative-of-projects-for-press.pdf )

Military Mobility is an interesting one...

This project will support Member States' commitment to simplify and standardize cross-border military transport procedures. It aims to enhance the speed of movement of military forces across Europe.
It aims to guarantee the unhindered movement of military personnel and assets within the borders of the EU. This entails avoiding long bureaucratic procedures to move through or over EU Member States, be it via rail, road, air or sea.

Does mean (for example) in a post Brexit world, a French army unit, on their own initiative might decide to drive onto the ferry to Rosslare and then head up to Newry to patrol the EU's external border?

eeguy

AnGaelach wrote: »

It's not 2% of the budget, it's 2% of GDP that's the NATO recommendation (and the same requirement PESCO is trying to reach). That's closer to about €6 billion, although with the MNCs which distort our economic output presumably we'd probably be needing to spend significantly less than that at maybe 2 or 3 billion.

Which is still an enormous sum of cash, I'm quite sure it's more than the Defence Forces would've ever seen before. But it means we could maintain a properly equipped and funded military, rather than the coast-guard/civil-defence-on-steroids that politicians currently seem to think is fine.

There's not a chance the government will ever quadruple their defense budget from the current spend.
Currently it's just under 1 billion per year.

Ireland's army is equipped for small scale peace keeping, terrorism prevention and border security.

Autochange

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.

Go hide under your bed

Gatling

recedite wrote: »

Military Mobility is an interesting one...Does mean (for example) in a post Brexit world, a French army unit, on their own initiative might decide to drive onto the ferry to Rosslare and then head up to Newry to patrol the EU's external border?

No just means a unit or units in France when involved in an exercise in other EU states they can drive direct or go by train and pass through borders minus any red tape ,which currently can cause issues with NATO or other European based exercises

AnGaelach

eeguy wrote: »

There's not a chance the government will ever quadruple their defense budget from the current spend.
Currently it's just under 1 billion per year.

Ireland's army is equipped for small scale peace keeping, terrorism prevention and border security.

They've already made a commitment to increase the budget as a % of GDP and in real terms... Nobody is expecting them to reach it by next October, it'll be over the next decade or so that they gradually increase it.

Harika

AnGaelach wrote: »

They've already made a commitment to increase the budget as a % of GDP and in real terms... Nobody is expecting them to reach it by next October, it'll be over the next decade or so that they gradually increase it.

Are there consequences if this is not done? Like nearly all Nato countries promised to up their defence budget until 2025? And since then it mostly went even lower than before.

recedite

Harika wrote: »

Are there consequences if this is not done? Like nearly all Nato countries promised to up their defence budget until 2025? And since then it mostly went even lower than before.

I think the budget is going to be more strict than Nato. Nato wanted access to certain countries for the purpose of building bases and missile systems there, and did not really care about them contributing the money.
If Ireland fails to pay the 2% into defence, it could potentially be "suspended" from PESCO. Which would be a national embarrassment I suppose. Neutrality is so much cheaper, and you can always claim the high moral ground if anyone else calls you a cheapskate :pac:
Anyway, the govt. is now required to submit a National Plan, to be scrutinized by other PESCO members, so we'll see what they come up with.

Meanwhile, in the east, Ukraine seems to be heading for EU membership as quick as the UK is exiting. Checking this EU fact sheet, under "close partners" it says Ukraine got a free trade deal in 2017, and under "visa liberalisation" it says Ukraine citizens got visa free movement in the EU, also in 2017.
Under the section "conflict in eastern ukraine including sanctions" there is a handy map showing all the EU aid to the war-torn region in the east of Ukraine. Those areas in the most eastern part of the map, parts of Luhansk and Donesk (where the EU has not spent a cent) are inhabited by a whole bunch of people who consider themselves to be both Ukrainian and Russian. Hence the ongoing war, and the reason the EU is keeping its gradual "adoption" of western Ukraine as low-key as possible.
So here's a photo of our tough looking new buddies and I would expect them to be full PESCO members within a decade or so, by which time PESCO should be a full defence alliance. Lets hope that the region has stabilised by then, and all the Russians (on both sides of the border) are happy with the solution. And everybody is happy with Crimea by then.

How many Irishmen was it that died after that little spat between Austria and Serbia 100 years ago?

expectationlost

(PESCO is not a miiltary common defence pact) but if one sees this approaching do you tell them, don't worry there is no EU Army you are just imaging this military ship with a EU flag on it.

sameoldname

expectationlost wrote: »

(PESCO is not a miltary defence pact) but if one sees this approaching do you tell them, don't worry there is no EU Army you are just imaging this military ship with a EU flag on it.

You think that's hard to explain then look at this!



What's worse is Ireland has been forced to send our army all over the globe under that flag! They also make us wear blue hats and paint our military vehicles white!

But seriously, in or out of PESCO this country is neutral and it will remain that way until we the people of this country ever decide to change that.

recedite

UN is a global organisation, so participating in UN missions does not affect neutrality.