Quote Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach View Post
It's utterly and completely biased. For example: In fact, the Commissioner issue was not included in the Council "decisions". It was merely a political promise, included in a EC statement, which is not legally-binding. Indeed the fact that, unlike taxation and family law, the Commissionership was not included in the Council decisions (which are an instrument of EU law though subordinate to the Treaties which will mean the ECJ striking them down if they conflict withe Treaties) suggests bad faith by the other member states, who will be free to renege of the promise after a yes vote.
But the ones on foreign and security policy cannot be struck down by the ECJ because the ECJ has no jurisdiction there.

Furthermore: [quote"]The European Council (Heads of Government) adopted a decision in June 2009 on a number of issues which had concerned some of the Irish electorate in the 2008 referendum. This decision is sometimes described as providing assurances of guarantees to Ireland that certain irish laws will not be affected by the Lisbon Treaty in areas of: The right to life, family and education, taxation, security and defence. This decision would be part of an international agreement that binds the member states. Not true. The ECJ would have the power to strike down the decisions if they are regarded as contravening the Treaties. Furthermore, even if deposited with the UN as the elites claim, this will not prevent the ECJ annulling them, as it did to an EU regulation implementing a freeze on terrorist assets on September 3rd last year. Also, on neutrality:In fact, the Shannon issue proves that the Irish govt has no 'policy on neutrality'. But in any case, Article 28A, while referring to the character of certain states' policies, does not mention Irish neutrality specifically. Indeed, if we consider Irish foreign policy at present as not being neutral, then by definition neutrality cannot be protected.
It's not a question of what "we" consider, but of what the government considers. The government considers that Ireland has a policy of military neutrality, therefore it has, and therefore that is covered by Article 28A.

The govt's foreign and defence policy has been one of progressive integration into NATO, through joining Partnership for Peace in explicit violation of a General Election promise to put the issue to a referendum. Note the reference to Lisbon being consistent with NATO membership: So clearly, the Lisbon CFSP provisions amount to de-facto NATO membership for Ireland.
No evidence for that assertion.

Furthermore, the requirement for member statesto "improve their military capabilities" overrules the guarantees - as the Treaties do as the highest constitutional law of the EU. In that context, it seems likely that Ireland will be forced to increase defence spending despite having a €21 billion deficit.
Military capabilities can be improved without spending more money. The Guarantees specify that the Treaty of Lisbon "does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities."

Indeed, it is possible that the EDA can use its powers "to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector" would allow it to dictate Irish military spending in this country, as well as to force the mobilisation of Irish and EU troops. It is an EU Pentagon, and will be in a strong position to implement the plans supported by EU CFSP High Representative Javier Solana for a European army of 300,000 troops. One thing the Commission leaflet is correct about is that the statement on workers-rights is not legally binding:
The EDA has no executive powers. It can only implement things if it is specifically given such powers by a future unanimous EU decision.