EU Army

[sondagefaux]

Up for a bet Field Marshall? You could win €1million? I can increase the amount to €1billion if that's not enough for you. Or you can set the amount yourself.

[ibis]

Article 31.1 TEU. Once the cat is out of the bag we support the cat. Article 31.2 allows for qualified majority voting on foreign policy implementation.

QMV doesn't include decisions with a military or defence implication - and one would think, when talking about the deployment of a PSC force, that there is such an implication.

That's because it isn't. It's a joint member-state force, and not under the control of the EU but the states involved, as you've just pointed out yourself.

More hairsplitting. Defence is covered by the intergovernmental method thats true but it is an integral part of the EU treaties which of course makes it an EU thing. Also the emphasis is on a permanent structure.

Pft. By that argument, we can say that any matter that corresponds to any word in the treaties is "an EU thing". PSC is a joint member-state arrangement, and under the control of those states, as you yourself were quick to claim when you thought it suited your argument.

Nor is 'defence' an "integral part of the treaties" - that is, or should be, what the discussion is about: whether we want it to be. Those who, like yourself, blindly claim that it's already happened are pretty much superfluous to the real discussion on your own admission.

Tell me something - where is the UN's army?

Show me the provisions in the UN Charter re permanent structured co-operation and i will yield to the better man. Otherwise nice attempt at a strawman.

You really ought to find out what a "straw man argument" is before so liberally misusing it. It would also be worth finding out what "begging the question" is, because it's what you're attempting to do here - I don't equate PSC with having an army, you do.

The UN as an institution doesn't have an army under its control, and nor does the EU. Both rely on joint forces operated by member states, to which missions are entrusted. In the case of the UN, this is ad hoc - in the case of the EU post-Lisbon, there is the option to create more enduring cooperation. Neither, however, can create an army under their control.

[kerdasi amaq]

QMV doesn't include decisions with a military or defence implication - and one would think, when talking about the deployment of a PSC force, that there is such an implication.

That may be true, for now, but, who's to say that won't change. If, the EU, demands that defence matters be subjected to QMV, all the "good Europeans" will trot out their standard chants and be in favour of it.

It is highly unlikely that Ireland's European County Council will have the backbone to object.

[Earnest]

You have imbibed EU doctrine very well I see.

Indeed yes the EU is a concept.
It is also a principle.

Therefore it seeks to dominate as an ideology.

Your thinking is clearly dominated by this ideology.

The pressure in Ireland over Lisbon emanated from this EU ideology and was merely articulated by individual states.

The ideological drift of the EU is based on an intellectual drive for greater political & economic cohesion.
Every member state is party to this.

You seem to adhere to idealist philosophy. That is, you believe that ideas - principles, ideologies, intellectual drives - exist independently of the people that are thinking them. I don't.

The democratic deficit of the EU unfortunately means that the stronger members are in the driving seat.
The current economic uncertainties are forging closer political links between member states.
As this process deepens the EU will produce institutions carrying greater power.

All the signs are currently there.

National vetoes are directly in the firing line of the Brussell,s think tank elites.
They are seen as an anachronism and a throwback to the era
of the nation state.

That is why there were such gasps of horror when Ireland vote NO to Lisbon.
So called advanced European intellectuals viewed Ireland as being on a par with the Weimar republic.

All nationalistic parties in the EU are being gradually sidelined in favour of movements dedicated to supranational issues .

Political parties advocating strong nationalistic sentiments are attacked and often deemed extreme right/left wing.

Perhaps that's because they are.

There is in Ireland a silent majority who love their country and want to see it part of the EU but have no desire to see their countries destiny handed over to a foreign ruling elite.

The posters who continually excuse every excursion of the leading EU countries into the realms of superstate politics are actively abetting a process that could result in Ireland being marginalized to the extent that it would have to leave the EU to ensure its survival as a sovereign nation.

If you think we've been a sovereign nation since 1973, you really have a problem.

Is that what they want?

If so they may well be placing the country on a long road to a second civil war.

So, is that where the Field Marshal comes from? You're going to lead one side in a civil war?

[kerdasi amaq]

If you think we've been a sovereign nation since 1973, you really have a problem.

Can we take this as an admission that the real objective of European integration is the obliteration of European Nation States?

[SilverSpurs]

QMV doesn't include decisions with a military or defence implication - and one would think, when talking about the deployment of a PSC force, that there is such an implication..

So you are not going to address the point re article 31.1 then. Not surprised.
True article 31.2 doesnt apply to defence/military matters but i amnt talking about deploying the PSC, i am talking about politically supporting their actions. But moving the goalposts seems to be your area of expertise.

[/QUOTE]Pft. By that argument, we can say that any matter that corresponds to any word in the treaties is "an EU thing". PSC is a joint member-state arrangement, and under the control of those states, as you yourself were quick to claim when you thought it suited your argument..[/QUOTE]

I would think that something provided for in EU treaties is related to the EU. Dont you? PSC cannot be deployed without EU approval (by the intergovernmental method) so it is under EU control. Post deployment it is master of its own house.

[/QUOTE]Nor is 'defence' an "integral part of the treaties" - that is, or should be, what the discussion is about: whether we want it to be. Those who, like yourself, blindly claim that it's already happened are pretty much superfluous to the real discussion on your own admission..[/QUOTE]

Er read the defence section of the TEU it has lots of stuff on EU defence in it. The intergovernmental method applies i know.

[/QUOTE]You really ought to find out what a "straw man argument" is before so liberally misusing it. It would also be worth finding out what "begging the question" is, because it's what you're attempting to do here - I don't equate PSC with having an army, you do..[/QUOTE]

A strawman is a form of red herring whereby you try to debunk your opponents argument with a spurious example. In my view the only difference between PSC and an army is optics and a thick coating of fudge.

[/QUOTE]The UN as an institution doesn't have an army under its control, and nor does the EU. Both rely on joint forces operated by member states, to which missions are entrusted. In the case of the UN, this is ad hoc - in the case of the EU post-Lisbon, there is the option to create more enduring cooperation. Neither, however, can create an army under their control.[/QUOTE]

Again PSC is under EU control as it can only be deployed with EU approval and carry out EU approved missions. Member state participation is governed by the EU treaties. The PSC group is intended as permanent. Again show me the parallel provisions in the UN charter and i will yield to the better man.

[Earnest]

Can we take this as an admission that the real objective of European integration is the obliteration of European Nation States?

Another philosophical idealist! Integration is not a person or group of people: it cannot have an objective.

People who advocate European integration tend to believe that the era of independent, sovereign nation states has gone, and that we live in a more inter-dependent world. I have heard of very few who want to obliterate nation states, rather they want them to co-operate more.

[The Field Marshal]

You seem to adhere to idealist philosophy. That is, you believe that ideas - principles, ideologies, intellectual drives - exist independently of the people that are thinking them. I don't.

Perhaps that's because they are.

If you think we've been a sovereign nation since 1973, you really have a problem.

So, is that where the Field Marshal comes from? You're going to lead one side in a civil war?

Thank you for your reply.

I dont either believe ideas exist in a vacuum.You misunderstand me if you think I think that.

Your assertion is glib that nationally minded parties are extreme right/left.

We are a sovereign nation insofar as critical decisions such as neutrality or not,war and taxation are in the gift of the Irish people to their leaders.
So I dont currently have a problem.

Your final point.

Should a situation arise wherby the power to decide for or against war was to be removed from the mandate of the Irish
electorate I would resist such by the use of force if necessary.

[Earnest]

Thank you for your reply.

I dont either believe ideas exist in a vacuum.You misunderstand me if you think I think that.

Your assertion is glib that nationally minded parties are extreme right/left.

We are a sovereign nation insofar as critical decisions such as neutrality or not,war and taxation are in the gift of the Irish people to their leaders.
So I dont currently have a problem.

Your final point.

Should a situation arise wherby the power to decide for or against war was to be removed from the mandate of the Irish
electorate I would resist such by the use of force if necessary.

So, if the Irish people voted to hand power of war and peace over from the Dáil to, say, the EU, you would fight the people.

[greenporcupine]

Another philosophical idealist! Integration is not a person or group of people: it cannot have an objective.

People who advocate European integration tend to believe that the era of independent, sovereign nation states has gone, and that we live in a more inter-dependent world. I have heard of very few who want to obliterate nation states, rather they want them to co-operate more.

What a load of nothingness ! !
Des conneries ! !