Lisbon’s military angle: a new mutual defence pact

[ibis]

So does it mean (a) we have an obligation

or

does it mean (b) we do not have an obligation?

An a or a b will do.

We have an obligation, but no military commitment, because a military commitment would prejudice our defence policy. If anyone is not clear on what "without prejudice" means, it means that the obligation cannot override existing policy.

Here is the dilemma you are not really tackling:

1. There is a clear statement which sets out an obligation. The obligation is new and far-reaching.

It's "new and far-reaching" if you misinterpret it as a military commitment, sure - but it isn't a military commitment for us.

Is there any military commitment for us in Lisbon, do you think?

We're constitutionally barred from participating in EU common defence. Our participation in the EU battlegroups system is unrelated to Lisbon, and doesn't militarily commit us in any way, because, as I said, the Irish soldiers in the Nordic battlegroup are still under the triple lock.

2. There is a fuzzy sentence after that clear statement. You say that this sentence means the clear statement is not so clear after all.

The second clear statement modifies the first. "Without prejudice" is a perfectly normal contractual statement, and I'll explain it here as I have before:

Say you entered a contract to supply "as many wombats a year as possible" to B Corp, when you already had a contract to supply 50 wombats a year to A Corp, then a "without prejudice to existing contracts" clause in your B Corp contract would mean that "as many wombats a year as possible" excluded those 50 wombats.

If a lawyer from B Corp were stupid enough to claim that you were in breach of your contractual obligation to provide "as many wombats a year as possible", because you held back 50 for A Corp, and you therefore you could have provided another 50, their case would be completely void, because of the "without prejudice" clause.

Forget your wombats. Here is a far simpler analogy - this is like a marriage contract, where both partners retain the right to say no to sex. It makes a nonsense of the words 'I do'.

How strange that your analogy completely fails to include "without prejudice", thus making it not an analogy at all. In fact, partners in a marriage do have the right to say no to sex - but that is not without prejudice, since it can be grounds for divorce.

As in where it says Ireland will use everything we have (which on the face of it includes our soldiers). Then comes another clear statement about NATO.

As pointed out above, the "without prejudice" means that "all means" does not include the use of our soldiers, except under the existing triple-lock system. The wording in question was inserted at Ireland's behest.

Have you a source for that claim about being inserted at our behest?

I'll have to dig a bit, because I didn't bookmark the original source. It went in at Maastricht, and has been debated before. It means exactly the same now as it has done for the last 15 years - why pretend that "this time it means something different"?

3. You say that the obligation in the first sentence must not mean we could use soldiers because that would be against our defence policy. Which you say is 'non alignment'.

4. We are not 'non-aligned' though are we? Our soldiers are already in a Battlegroup. If there is a battle, will they not use Battlegroups? If not I can see why the Minister was keen to call them something else!

"Non-alignment", like "neutrality", as a policy, is in reference to WW2 and the Cold War. Essentially, it means that we didn't join the Allies, or NATO.

In respect of the battlegroups, we provide non-combat units (bomb-disposal and security) comprising roughly 100 soldiers. Those soldiers are under the triple-lock. If the battlegroup were to go into combat, the Irish soldiers could only go with them if the triple-lock allows them to - they will "stay in barracks", even if the battlegroup doesn't. Where the triple-lock allows, they will operate with the battlegroup.

We remain, therefore, non-aligned, in that we are not part of any EU common defence (indeed, we are constitutionally barred from being so). Participation of Irish soldiers in the actions of the Nordic battlegroup is entirely at Irish discretion.

This is what drives FG mad, and I sympathise. You reduce neutrality to something that has no current meaning, while you pretend to protect it.

Non-aligned is a bit like being an atheist. It's not a "positive" position. It simply means we don't take sides in military and quasi-military conflicts.

You insult our armed forces by implying they are not real soldiers. Even though the personnel are professional to their fingertips - and I mean that literally in the case of the IED unit. You cannot be serious when you say the Battlegroup they are an integral part of can be expected to go into battle without their essential skills.

Ha ha! Why not say that I don't support our troops, Citizen? The soldiers are completely professional, and combat-ready, but they are not in combat units. Neither IED disposal nor close security are frontline positions, and your spurious indignation is so fake as to be laughable.

And you say this is so because we are not part of an EU common defence. From your previous efforts to wriggle out of the spotlight I doubt if you know the difference, but we most certainly are involved with the EU common defence policy. Which Lisbon strengthens.

BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN:
9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section where that common defence would include the State.

But, you know, whatever you need to pretend.

If the EU wants to use the EU battlegroups for, say, peacekeeping in Darfur, then this requires, as mmclo points out, unanimity - Ireland has to agree. Even if Ireland agrees that the EU battlegroups can be used, Ireland does not have to participate, even if the Nordic battlegroup is used.

Essentially, the only time you will ever see Irish soldiers participating in active service with the Nordic battlegroup, under current government policy, is if the mission in question is approved by the Cabinet, the Dáil, and the UN Security Council - exactly as at present.

If things were staying exactly as they are at present we would not need a referendum.

Of course we would, because a referendum is necessary to allow ratification. It's not being held because of the clauses you misinterpret, and until such time as Article 29.4 of the Constitution is repealed by referendum, we remain debarred from participation in an EU common defence.

Is this really the best you can do? Fake-indignant claims I don't support our troops, and completely ignoring the provisions of our Constitution? Are you George Bush, perhaps?

[Citizen]

[quote=ibis]

So does it mean (a) we have an obligation

or

does it mean (b) we do not have an obligation?

An a or a b will do.

We have an obligation, but no military commitment, because a military commitment would prejudice our defence policy. If anyone is not clear on what "without prejudice" means, it means that the obligation cannot override existing policy.

Here is the dilemma you are not really tackling:

1. There is a clear statement which sets out an obligation. The obligation is new and far-reaching.

It's "new and far-reaching" if you misinterpret it as a military commitment, sure - but it isn't a military commitment for us.

Is there any military commitment for us in Lisbon, do you think?

We're constitutionally barred from participating in EU common defence. Our participation in the EU battlegroups system is unrelated to Lisbon, and doesn't militarily commit us in any way, because, as I said, the Irish soldiers in the Nordic battlegroup are still under the triple lock.[/quote024pk0i]

That is an interesting answer to a different question.

As in where it says Ireland will use everything we have (which on the face of it includes our soldiers). Then comes another clear statement about NATO.

As pointed out above, the "without prejudice" means that "all means" does not include the use of our soldiers, except under the existing triple-lock system. The wording in question was inserted at Ireland's behest.

Have you a source for that claim about being inserted at our behest?

I'll have to dig a bit, because I didn't bookmark the original source. It went in at Maastricht, and has been debated before. It means exactly the same now as it has done for the last 15 years - why pretend that "this time it means something different"?

I look forward to seeing what you dig up.

3. You say that the obligation in the first sentence must not mean we could use soldiers because that would be against our defence policy. Which you say is 'non alignment'.

4. We are not 'non-aligned' though are we? Our soldiers are already in a Battlegroup. If there is a battle, will they not use Battlegroups? If not I can see why the Minister was keen to call them something else!

"Non-alignment", like "neutrality", as a policy, is in reference to WW2 and the Cold War. Essentially, it means that we didn't join the Allies, or NATO.

In respect of the battlegroups, we provide non-combat units (bomb-disposal and security) comprising roughly 100 soldiers. Those soldiers are under the triple-lock. If the battlegroup were to go into combat, the Irish soldiers could only go with them if the triple-lock allows them to - they will "stay in barracks", even if the battlegroup doesn't. Where the triple-lock allows, they will operate with the battlegroup.

We remain, therefore, non-aligned, in that we are not part of any EU common defence (indeed, we are constitutionally barred from being so). Participation of Irish soldiers in the actions of the Nordic battlegroup is entirely at Irish discretion.

This is what drives FG mad, and I sympathise. You reduce neutrality to something that has no current meaning, while you pretend to protect it.

Non-aligned is a bit like being an atheist. It's not a "positive" position. It simply means we don't take sides in military and quasi-military conflicts.

We sure take sides in Lisbon.

You insult our armed forces by implying they are not real soldiers. Even though the personnel are professional to their fingertips - and I mean that literally in the case of the IED unit. You cannot be serious when you say the Battlegroup they are an integral part of can be expected to go into battle without their essential skills.

Ha ha! Why not say that I don't support our troops, Citizen? The soldiers are completely professional, and combat-ready, but they are not in combat units. Neither IED disposal nor close security are frontline positions, and your spurious indignation is so fake as to be laughable.

Laugh away. That is what you are doing. Battlegroups that are more like social circles that melt at the first hint of conflict. Come clean man.

And you say this is so because we are not part of an EU common defence. From your previous efforts to wriggle out of the spotlight I doubt if you know the difference, but we most certainly are involved with the EU common defence policy. Which Lisbon strengthens.

BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN:
9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section where that common defence would include the State.

But, you know, whatever you need to pretend.

This response confirms that you do not in fact know the difference between 'common defence' and 'common defence policy'. Given that FF have you out in front on this topic that is actually quite frightening. You need to talk to someone.

If the EU wants to use the EU battlegroups for, say, peacekeeping in Darfur, then this requires, as mmclo points out, unanimity - Ireland has to agree. Even if Ireland agrees that the EU battlegroups can be used, Ireland does not have to participate, even if the Nordic battlegroup is used.

Essentially, the only time you will ever see Irish soldiers participating in active service with the Nordic battlegroup, under current government policy, is if the mission in question is approved by the Cabinet, the Dáil, and the UN Security Council - exactly as at present.

If things were staying exactly as they are at present we would not need a referendum.

Of course we would, because a referendum is necessary to allow ratification.

We are having a referendum because power is being transferred. Which is my point. No transfer of power, no referendum, as mmclo will tell you.

It's not being held because of the clauses you misinterpret, and until such time as Article 29.4 of the Constitution is repealed by referendum, we remain debarred from participation in an EU common defence.

If you do not know the difference between common defence and common defence policy you will forgive me if I disagree with your legal analysis.

[DeGaulle]

We are having a referendum because power is being transferred. Which is my point. No transfer of power, no referendum, as mmclo will tell you.

Isn't it funny that Denmark is not having a referendum because no power is being transferred?

[FutureTaoiseach]

We are having a referendum because power is being transferred. Which is my point. No transfer of power, no referendum, as mmclo will tell you.

Isn't it funny that Denmark is not having a referendum because no power is being transferred?

Actually it is funny yes. That their govt is claiming the removal of references to the EU flag and anthem means it doesn't give up sovereignty, when they planned a referendum on the near identical EU Constitution. I wonder what changed their mind.

[mmclo]

the difference between common defence and common defence policy

Well they both effectively require unanimity so the points on our constitution apply. The proposal for common defence as envisaged in article 29.4.9 has not been made yet...this treaty again says it may be made in the future

[FutureTaoiseach]

It doesn't outlaw a common offense.

[Citizen]

We are having a referendum because power is being transferred. Which is my point. No transfer of power, no referendum, as mmclo will tell you.

Isn't it funny that Denmark is not having a referendum because no power is being transferred?

It surely would be funny if Denmark was governed in accordance with our Constitution!

But I think they aren't so it's not. Sadly.

Are you the man with the aricraft carrier in the garden? Did you need planning permission?

[ibis]

[quote=Citizen][quote=ibis]

So does it mean (a) we have an obligation

or

does it mean (b) we do not have an obligation?

An a or a b will do.

We have an obligation, but no military commitment, because a military commitment would prejudice our defence policy. If anyone is not clear on what "without prejudice" means, it means that the obligation cannot override existing policy.

Here is the dilemma you are not really tackling:

1. There is a clear statement which sets out an obligation. The obligation is new and far-reaching.

It's "new and far-reaching" if you misinterpret it as a military commitment, sure - but it isn't a military commitment for us.

Is there any military commitment for us in Lisbon, do you think?

We're constitutionally barred from participating in EU common defence. Our participation in the EU battlegroups system is unrelated to Lisbon, and doesn't militarily commit us in any way, because, as I said, the Irish soldiers in the Nordic battlegroup are still under the triple lock.[/quote:3bsrskmd]

That is an interesting answer to a different question.[/quote:3bsrskmd]

Ah, well - your question was rather widely phrased. There are commitments for our army in the Treaty, but they're not new. There's an obligation of aid and assistance, which is new, but isn't military. What bits do you think constitute "military commitments", and indeed what do you think "military commitments" are?

As in where it says Ireland will use everything we have (which on the face of it includes our soldiers). Then comes another clear statement about NATO.

As pointed out above, the "without prejudice" means that "all means" does not include the use of our soldiers, except under the existing triple-lock system. The wording in question was inserted at Ireland's behest.

Have you a source for that claim about being inserted at our behest?

I'll have to dig a bit, because I didn't bookmark the original source. It went in at Maastricht, and has been debated before. It means exactly the same now as it has done for the last 15 years - why pretend that "this time it means something different"?

I look forward to seeing what you dig up.

Oireachtas debate, 1992, in respect of the phrase:

"These provisions do not change Ireland's position as a country outside military alliances. They will not oblige Ireland to join a military alliance or involve us in a mutual defence commitment. Of particular importance to Ireland is the provision in the Treaty which states that the policy of the Union in the security area “shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member States”. This provision echoes the conclusion of the European Council in Rome in December 1990 that the prospect of a role for the Union in defence matters should be considered without prejudice to the traditional positions of certain member states."

Also, from The Ratification of the Maastricht Treaty: Issues, Debates and Future:

"Defence is important because Ireland is the only neutral Member State. In the conclusions of the Presidency after the European Council in Rome this special position was recognized in the phrase 'without prejudice to the traditional positions of [other] Member States'."

That phrase 'without prejudice to the traditional positions of [other] Member States' is the direct predecessor of the "without prejudice" phrasing in Lisbon (there's an Oireachtas debate which notes the change). It has been in every Treaty since, and is there specifically for Ireland's benefit, to take account of our non-alignment.

3. You say that the obligation in the first sentence must not mean we could use soldiers because that would be against our defence policy. Which you say is 'non alignment'.

4. We are not 'non-aligned' though are we? Our soldiers are already in a Battlegroup. If there is a battle, will they not use Battlegroups? If not I can see why the Minister was keen to call them something else!

"Non-alignment", like "neutrality", as a policy, is in reference to WW2 and the Cold War. Essentially, it means that we didn't join the Allies, or NATO.

In respect of the battlegroups, we provide non-combat units (bomb-disposal and security) comprising roughly 100 soldiers. Those soldiers are under the triple-lock. If the battlegroup were to go into combat, the Irish soldiers could only go with them if the triple-lock allows them to - they will "stay in barracks", even if the battlegroup doesn't. Where the triple-lock allows, they will operate with the battlegroup.

We remain, therefore, non-aligned, in that we are not part of any EU common defence (indeed, we are constitutionally barred from being so). Participation of Irish soldiers in the actions of the Nordic battlegroup is entirely at Irish discretion.

This is what drives FG mad, and I sympathise. You reduce neutrality to something that has no current meaning, while you pretend to protect it.

Non-aligned is a bit like being an atheist. It's not a "positive" position. It simply means we don't take sides in military and quasi-military conflicts.

We sure take sides in Lisbon.

No, we don't, because we have opted out of the common defence. Lisbon contains no military commitments.

You insult our armed forces by implying they are not real soldiers. Even though the personnel are professional to their fingertips - and I mean that literally in the case of the IED unit. You cannot be serious when you say the Battlegroup they are an integral part of can be expected to go into battle without their essential skills.

Ha ha! Why not say that I don't support our troops, Citizen? The soldiers are completely professional, and combat-ready, but they are not in combat units. Neither IED disposal nor close security are frontline positions, and your spurious indignation is so fake as to be laughable.

Laugh away. That is what you are doing. Battlegroups that are more like social circles that melt at the first hint of conflict. Come clean man.

What is what I'm doing? Not supporting our troops? Do you really not comprehend the fact that our participation in the Nordic EU battlegroup is voluntary, and subject to the triple-lock? Let's go through it in nice simple terms, then:

Citizen: participation in an EU battlegroup means we are committed to do whatever the EU battlegroup does. If it goes into combat, we go into combat.

Truth: participation is voluntary. If the battlegroup goes into combat, we don't, unless the Cabinet, the Dáil, and the UN Security Council agree, exactly as we currently commit soldiers.

And you say this is so because we are not part of an EU common defence. From your previous efforts to wriggle out of the spotlight I doubt if you know the difference, but we most certainly are involved with the EU common defence policy. Which Lisbon strengthens.

BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN:
9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section where that common defence would include the State.

But, you know, whatever you need to pretend.

This response confirms that you do not in fact know the difference between 'common defence' and 'common defence policy'. Given that FF have you out in front on this topic that is actually quite frightening. You need to talk to someone.

And you need to listen, but that seems increasingly unlikely, particularly if you think I'm anything to do with FF. "Common defence policy" is (a) subject to unanimity, and (b) not a military commitment. Ireland can agree that the EU should do X, but that implies no commitment of soldiers on Ireland's part whatsoever.

Perhaps you'd like to explain to everyone the relevance you perceive - or would you rather stick to vague handwaving statements that "Lisbon means military commitments" without ever having to explain what they are, or where Lisbon states them?

If the EU wants to use the EU battlegroups for, say, peacekeeping in Darfur, then this requires, as mmclo points out, unanimity - Ireland has to agree. Even if Ireland agrees that the EU battlegroups can be used, Ireland does not have to participate, even if the Nordic battlegroup is used.

Essentially, the only time you will ever see Irish soldiers participating in active service with the Nordic battlegroup, under current government policy, is if the mission in question is approved by the Cabinet, the Dáil, and the UN Security Council - exactly as at present.

If things were staying exactly as they are at present we would not need a referendum.

Of course we would, because a referendum is necessary to allow ratification.

We are having a referendum because power is being transferred. Which is my point. No transfer of power, no referendum, as mmclo will tell you.

Er, yes. So? We are arguing about whether Lisbon entails military commitments, not whether there is any impact on Ireland's sovereignty.

It's not being held because of the clauses you misinterpret, and until such time as Article 29.4 of the Constitution is repealed by referendum, we remain debarred from participation in an EU common defence.

If you do not know the difference between common defence and common defence policy you will forgive me if I disagree with your legal analysis.

See above. Common defence policy is not a military commitment, a distinction you appear to prefer to ignore. You also appear to prefer to ignore the fact that Ireland has a veto over any such policy.

[ibis]

It doesn't outlaw a common offense.

Ireland has a veto over any such common military action, and even if Ireland agreed to it, would still require a UN Security Council resolution as well as Dáil and Cabinet agreement before Ireland could commit soldiers.

[ON THE ONE ROAD]

It doesn't outlaw a common offense.

Ireland has a veto over any such common military action, and even if Ireland agreed to it, would still require a UN Security Council resolution as well as Dáil and Cabinet agreement before Ireland could commit soldiers.

out of interest do other EU countries have these restristions.

Creating a large body of trained and armed men for defenceive reasons at a time when theres no treat seems a bit strange. america went on an offencive to secure oil, is the EU assembleing an army to do the same