The Official Lisbon Treaty Thread

[Zapatista]

If it's a sort of peacekeeping unit, I'd have no great objections, but if it is a standing EU army, then I would have some reservations, on the basis that if the EU state determines that we should attack Iran, or help the US in Iraq or whatever, then Irish soldiers could be caught up in that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy#Future
We have an opt out of any military action taken by the EU from the last referendum

There is not one mention of the word neutrality and no direct
acknowledgement of the neutral member states. This is very different to the references to NATO obligations and NATO compatibility.
While there is a reference to the "specific character of the security and defence
policy of certain member states", this is not the same as neutrality and provides
little protection. It will not stop a EU minister for foriegn affairs acting on our behalf nor will it stop us funding war or publically supporting it.

Can you answer this. If the EU 'state' decided to go to war with Iran, for example, would all member states be obliged to send troops? Are we essentially removing any element of neutrality?

Will the EU have an army itself, including volunteers etc, or will it draw on constituent countries' armies, and will those countries have to supply people and munitions if asked?

No we won't
The EU defense force will be like the UN made up of other countries army's . I think its for the best the sooner we are able to engage in peace keeping missions with out the US dragging its feet the better

Do you mean allowing the EU to behave like the US?

[Gnevin]

Do you mean allowing the EU to behave like the US?

No i mean allowing the EU to send troops in to area when requested by the legitimate Governments of those area , i bid to provide peace keeping , with out having to go cap in hand to the Yanks who are too busy fighting for oil to give a shit .

[Zapatista]

Just like the ones we are sending to ex-French colony Chad at the request of French whom still have many economical interests there?

[Rav67]

Can't see how a European army could ever get off the ground unless as a purely peace-keeping force.  You can still find young men willing to fight and die for their countries, but who on earth would be willing to put their life on the line for Europe?

[Owenmoresider]

Voting No whenever the time comes. The fact that no other country is puttng it to the people shows just how undemocratic the European project is, knowing full well it could fall (especially in Britain, that right Gordon?), going from being a trade alliance when it was set up, to a wannabe superstate. France and Holland did the right thing, hopefully voters here ignore the spineless parties' urgings.

[Pangurban]

As a supporter of the European Union,as at presently constituted, i oppose this treaty, on the following grounds
A. It is an attempt too bring in by the back Door, that which the Irish people along with the Dutch, rejected at the front Door by way of referendums, namely the proposed European Constitution. There is no essential difference between the two documents other than there titles.
B. It entails a serious erosion of our Neutrality, military and financial committments to a european defence force, whose duties will not be confined to peacekeeping as in the U.N., but will be empowered to advance european interest in any sphere deemed necessary.
C. It proposes the appointment of a President, in whose election the people will have no direct say
D. Many of the current opt-outs which we currently exercise will no longer apply.
E. The increased voting power of the larger countries will nullify and weaken the position of smaller countries such as ourselves.
F.I fear, though there is no evidence for this in the proposed Treaty, that as Europe begins to function as a Superstate, we will see the introduction of conscription, to a European Army. As i say no evidence, just foresight based on past history of European developmental history.
Other concerns are the use of public monies by the aligned forces of the government parties and opposition, to promote a yes vote, while they make no serious attempt to inform or educate people on the issues, and discourage any kind of serious debate. We are presented with a take it choice with no option to leave it. Their strategy is clearly to keep coming back with referendums until they get the answer they desire, as in the Abortion issue. I am open to be convinced that this treaty will be good for Ireland and Europe, but no politician can be bothered to try. The issues are too complex, they say, trust us.  Do you, would you,trust them on that basis. Give them their answer, in the referendum, and defend what little is left of Democracy

[stephenite]

As a supporter of the European Union,as at presently constituted, i oppose this treaty, on the following grounds
A. It is an attempt too bring in by the back Door, that which the Irish people along with the Dutch, rejected at the front Door by way of referendums, namely the proposed European Constitution. There is no essential difference between the two documents other than there titles.
B. It entails a serious erosion of our Neutrality, military and financial committments to a european defence force, whose duties will not be confined to peacekeeping as in the U.N., but will be empowered to advance european interest in any sphere deemed necessary.
C. It proposes the appointment of a President, in whose election the people will have no direct say
D. Many of the current opt-outs which we currently exercise will no longer apply.
E. The increased voting power of the larger countries will nullify and weaken the position of smaller countries such as ourselves.
F.I fear, though there is no evidence for this in the proposed Treaty, that as Europe begins to function as a Superstate, we will see the introduction of conscription, to a European Army. As i say no evidence, just foresight based on past history of European developmental history.Other concerns are the use of public monies by the aligned forces of the government parties and opposition, to promote a yes vote, while they make no serious attempt to inform or educate people on the issues, and discourage any kind of serious debate. We are presented with a take it choice with no option to leave it. Their strategy is clearly to keep coming back with referendums until they get the answer they desire, as in the Abortion issue. I am open to be convinced that this treaty will be good for Ireland and Europe, but no politician can be bothered to try. The issues are too complex, they say, trust us.  Do you, would you,trust them on that basis. Give them their answer, in the referendum, and defend what little is left of Democracy

Can I for some examples of past history you're basing this foresight on? I'm in broad agreement with your stance but can't for the life of me figure out which section of history you might be referring to

[Zapatista]

The Government led by B Ahern are claiming a victory for having climate change introduced to the Lisbon Treaty. The fact is that the from the original document the change the Irish Government achieved through the leadership of B Ahern consists of six words. In the environment section the treaty it says the EU must protect it's environment (here is the great Irish addition) "and in particular climate change" . This adds nothing binding for the EU and can be totally ignored. There are no targets or penalty's included. I think the negotiations might have been more about Berties big job in the EU when he is done here rather than Climate change or what is good for the Irish people.


EDIT
Also of interest is there is 24 times more content of the treaty dedicated to Space Exploration than the Environment

[Owenmoresider]

More like the Greens trying to prove that they have some degree of influence, making them somehow relevant. Makes a change from screwing us on motor tax, €50 more for mine this year, thanks John.

And the thing is, if people don't trust Bertie in his explanations for the money matters, how can they take his word on the Treaty as gospel? Just because SF are the only party (now that the Greens have been seduced by power) that opposes it, doesn't mean that their position is wrong, and means we should support it.

[Gnevin]

More like the Greens trying to prove that they have some degree of influence, making them somehow relevant. Makes a change from screwing us on motor tax, €50 more for mine this year, thanks John.

And the thing is, if people don't trust Bertie in his explanations for the money matters, how can they take his word on the Treaty as gospel? Just because SF are the only party (now that the Greens have been seduced by power) that opposes it, doesn't mean that their position is wrong, and means we should support it.

SF are like the Torys when it comes to Europe

[Owenmoresider]

SF are like the Torys when it comes to Europe

One of the few things I agree with them on. Conversely the others seem to be content to worship at the EU altar, regardless of the issue. It's probably somewhere in-between, but I'll side with the Shinners on this one.

[Zapatista]

SF are not the only party to oppose it.
The Socialist party (Joe Higgins) oppose it in Ireland as well as many Political groups and organisations (not necessarily partys) as many partys across Europe including the Labour Party in France and many Green Partys:-[

Also the Greens don't support or oppose it here

[AZOffaly]

Not only do the Greens not support it, or oppose it, they are not even 'neutral' on it. 

[Zapatista]

See the Green Party position (or lack of) on it here -

http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?PHPSESSID=05fec951e5eb5bca2df725fc3e5f4c00&topic=6466.0

[Silky]

It's all very complicated. I'll abstain.