BBC scoop on French EU military plans

[corkman2007]

Is Ireland obliged to participate in any of this? No. We also have a veto, along with every other member state, over common defence and security policy proposals.

This is not about participation in a military adventure or a defence pact. This is about "beefing up the EUs military capacity" (to use the BBC's language), or about the legally binding treaty obligation that "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities" (to use the wording of the Lisbon Treaty).

That will become a legal imperative if Lisbon is approved.

It's not legally-binding because no part of the treaty provisions on the common foreign and security policy (which includes common defence and security policy) can be subject to rulings from the ECJ.

In addition, every member-state has a veto over any decisions taken under this area.

[Grumpy Fogey]

1. The Treaty says absolutely nothing about use of said beefing up, Ireland's neutrality still exists.

You are tilting at windmills. The BBC's story is about French proposals to "beef up" the EUs military capacities, not about the use to which those increased capacities will be put. If Lisbon is passed, the policy of "beefing up" will be enshrined in the TEU. It will not be subject to veto by any member state. Indeed, reversing the policy of militarisation would require the agreement of all member states to amend the TEU.

[CelticAtheist]

1. The Treaty says absolutely nothing about use of said beefing up, Ireland's neutrality still exists.

You are tilting at windmills. The BBC's story is about French proposals to "beef up" the EUs military capacities, not about the use to which those increased capacities will be put. If Lisbon is passed, the policy of "beefing up" will be enshrined in the TEU. It will not be subject to veto by any member state. Indeed, reversing the policy of militarisation would require the agreement of all member states to amend the TEU.

And yet the level of "beefing up" is left to the members themselves, and the use of the "beefed up" militaries still applies to peacekeeping and self-defence.
Ireland was already increasing its capabilities in the military anyway, to deal with increased UN responsibilities...

If we still have control over our military, when and with to whom we go to war, then there is no problem.

Then there's Austrian, German, and British reluctance to get into that sort of thing...

[Coggy]

Meanwhile the mandarins continue to plan their version of our future.

Here is a peep behind the curtain.

With thanks to the BBC and Mark Mardell

The French have said beefing up the EU's military capability will be a key part of their six-month presidency.

The BBC has been told their plans also include a new EU military headquarters.

Other items on the French list of proposals involve calling upon all EU countries to increase spending on defence to meet a new target of perhaps 6% of Gross Domestic Product.

More aircraft

France's leadership of the EU will also include a push for the creation of more rapid reaction forces to enable Europe to collectively undertake three simultaneous missions.

They also want more helicopters and aircraft to be made available for missions.

The EU will not officially comment until the proposals are unveiled by French President Sarkozy in two weeks time.

Great so we can see more Chad like expeditions to defend the old colony dictatorship, fantastic .

[NotDevsSon]

Is Ireland obliged to participate in any of this? No. We also have a veto, along with every other member state, over common defence and security policy proposals.

This is not about participation in a military adventure or a defence pact. This is about "beefing up the EUs military capacity" (to use the BBC's language), or about the legally binding treaty obligation that "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities" (to use the wording of the Lisbon Treaty).

That will become a legal imperative if Lisbon is approved.

You don't get it.

In the EU member states play a certain game in treaties. Where someone really really wants something in the treaty, they put it in, but in a way that is meaningless.

The above is a classic example. "Undertake progressively to improve" means nothing. There is a key bit missing - a definition, a means of measurement, etc. Ireland for example in the next two years will progressively improve our military capabilities. How? This year we bought new specially designed uniforms for soldiers going to Chad. Next year we will need to buy more specialist uniforms for the rangers. So we are quite literally progressively improving our military capabilities.

Do you get it? The whole article is meaningless, a wordplay to keep the French who like that sort of thing in, while written in such a way that if you don't want to do something you don't have to. Or rather you can get away with doing damn all. If Ireland buys 1 bullet one year, 2 the next, and 3 the year after, that means we are "progressively improving our military capacity." It still means our military capacity may be sweet fukk all. But if it is less worse than the previous year by 1 bullet, we have fulfilled our obligations.

The problem with the No side is that they don't realise that almost every 'commitment' in the treaty either has an opt out, a weasel word or as in this one, no defined meaning. (It is like the old rule we used to have in Ireland where nightclubs only got their licence if they served food. So they cooked 5 meals - instant mash and a rasher - gave them to five people, and then if the cops came in and asked 'did you serve food?' they could truthfully say 'yes' and the guard knew well enough not to ask 'to how many?' as he knew it was a stupid law and only a handful had been serviced).

[corkman2007]

You are tilting at windmills. The BBC's story is about French proposals to "beef up" the EUs military capacities, not about the use to which those increased capacities will be put. If Lisbon is passed, the policy of "beefing up" will be enshrined in the TEU. It will not be subject to veto by any member state. Indeed, reversing the policy of militarisation would require the agreement of all member states to amend the TEU.

It will be subject to veto by member-states. All decisions taken abut the common security and defence policy within the TEU require unanimity:

Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State

[CelticAtheist]

Great so we can see more Chad like expeditions to defend the old colony dictatorship, fantastic .

Says the socialist revolutionary.
Are you saying we should just say "**** Africa, let them kill each other en masse"?

[ArtyQueing]

Meanwhile the mandarins continue to plan their version of our future.

Here is a peep behind the curtain.

With thanks to the BBC and Mark Mardell

The French have said beefing up the EU's military capability will be a key part of their six-month presidency.

The BBC has been told their plans also include a new EU military headquarters.

Other items on the French list of proposals involve calling upon all EU countries to increase spending on defence to meet a new target of perhaps 6% of Gross Domestic Product.

More aircraft

France's leadership of the EU will also include a push for the creation of more rapid reaction forces to enable Europe to collectively undertake three simultaneous missions.

They also want more helicopters and aircraft to be made available for missions.

The EU will not officially comment until the proposals are unveiled by French President Sarkozy in two weeks time.

So what? WE HAVE A VETO! D'oh!

So what? we may not use it - scared of upsetting our neighbours , D'oh!

[Electro]

France voted for a right-wing conservative and they got a neo-con military expansionist instead. What a bummer! Make sure madman Sarkozy's military ambitions don't spill onto us too through Lisbon by voting No in the referendum.

[CelticAtheist]

France voted for a right-wing conservative and they got a neo-con military expansionist instead. What a bummer! Make sure madman Sarkozy's military ambitions don't spill onto us too through Lisbon by voting No in the referendum.

You haven't read anything anyone's been saying have you?