Helium Three wrote:

But of course. They would never start an illegal war unless there was a clause in Lisbon allowing them to! Why did I not think of that? How about something like: ''You may start an illegal war if you really want to? Just try to end it by Christmas.'' Would that do the trick?

Well, it would be a positive delight to see you produce something from the treaty that clearly supported your position, for once.

If the EU is liable to engage in illegal wars at the drop of a hat, why would voting No to Lisbon make any difference?

ibis wrote:

Helium Three wrote:

But of course. They would never start an illegal war unless there was a clause in Lisbon allowing them to! Why did I not think of that? How about something like: ''You may start an illegal war if you really want to? Just try to end it by Christmas.'' Would that do the trick?

Well, it would be a positive delight to see you produce something from the treaty that clearly supported your position, for once.

If the EU is liable to engage in illegal wars at the drop of a hat, why would voting No to Lisbon make any difference?

The pathway would be smoother Ibis, that is all. Iraq, as you pointed out, is 'legal' Chad is 'legal' and any other misbegotten adventure of slaughter and asset grabbing will be given the label of legality if it suits.

Why indeed? I think I must vote Yes.Then if they are ever tempted to use their military muscle illegally I can just ring up the High Representative, and speak to him man to man (somehow I imagine he will be a man) confident in the knowledge that he will accept the encouragement of a fellow Yes man to stay on the straight and narrow. Have you his number handy, just in case?

Helium Three wrote:

Why indeed? I think I must vote Yes.Then if they are ever tempted to use their military muscle illegally I can just ring up the High Representative, and speak to him man to man (somehow I imagine he will be a man) confident in the knowledge that he will accept the encouragement of a fellow Yes man to stay on the straight and narrow. Have you his number handy, just in case?

Alas, no. I am sure you would be able to persuade him - although he (taking your gender preference) might be somewhat more persuaded by the achievement of the necessary unity between 27 countries with conflicting interests, and perhaps advise you to look to your government...

Quote :

The pathway would be smoother Ibis, that is all. Iraq, as you pointed
out, is 'legal' Chad is 'legal' and any other misbegotten adventure of
slaughter and asset grabbing will be given the label of legality if it
suits.

I've said this before - if you consider all military interventions to be morally abhorrent in themselves, then I can fully understand voting No. I disagree with the concept, personally, because nobody has yet managed to achieve an end to war through pacificism - the goal mostly appears to be seeing oneself as having clean hands.

Thanks for that link cactus flower.

I leave the field to Helium Three for the night - on the strict understanding that he's to leave the goalposts where they were. Small people must be walked to school in the not very distant future...

snap!

Helium Three wrote:

snap!

Do you walk your little 'un(s) to school too? One of the world's better responsibilities, but a little early for my liking!

Yep. Spotted a seal on the way this morning.

Helium Three wrote:

Yep. Spotted a seal on the way this morning.

Ah, good. Our walk is a little more urban, I think.

PS. Happy now, Kate?

ibis wrote:

PS. Happy now, Kate?

A little teary actually.

Reminds me of that famous moment in history when the warring British and German factions put aside their differences on Christmas Day and celebrated their shared humanity.

Sniff.

But we all know what happened on St Stephen's Day...

Mind you today is April Fool's which has a whole other raft of opportunities attached to it ... Gay Mitchell to join with Libertas in demanding a doubling of our defence expenditure in the next budget? THat would be a happy union of gravitas and levitas.

Libertas SWP front!

ibis wrote:

Libertas SWP front!

...which probably requires a greater suspension of disbelief than most April Fool's Day's gaga.

Hey Ibis

Is it just me - or have you noticed that every active thread on Lisbon on P.ie is coming down with militaritis?

Regardless of Heliums one man mission to insert a mutual assistance pact into the treaty so he can be proved right - why are folks so ignorant over what is easily one of the most straightforward parts of the treaty - if you want in to a military partnership of sorts with your neighbours - go ahead - if you dont - well thats no problem either - thats all that there is!

Anything else is pure speculation and extrapolation - am I reading this treaty all wrong?

Edo wrote:

Hey Ibis

Is it just me - or have you noticed that every active thread on Lisbon on P.ie is coming down with militaritis?

Regardless of Heliums one man mission to insert a mutual assistance pact into the treaty so he can be proved right - why are folks so ignorant over what is easily one of the most straightforward parts of the treaty - if you want it in to a military partnership of sorts with your neighbours - go ahead - if you dont - well thats no problem either - thats all that there is!

Anything else is pure speculation and extrapolation - am I reading this treaty all wrong?

Well, the Treaty may not have the military implications that Helium Three claims, but it certainly does have military implications. I quite like this argument (from p.ie):

cHeal wrote:

Well it would certainly restrict the adventurism of individual nations, and possibly make illegal wars less likely, but it would not completely avoid them, rather it would just turn individual adventurism (I'm loving this word now) into collective adventurism, and Ireland along with all other member states would be complicit in any illegal war carried out by a collective European force. I far prefer the current situation, where individual nations, as sovereign entities can engage in illegal warfare if they so wish, without blackening the name of all nations within the EU. If countries engage in illegal aggressive wars then they should be sanctioned, not necessarily or just by the UN, but by all nations whose interests have been damaged.

I think that neatly, and rather honestly, encapsulates a particular worry - that by the very fact of unanimity being required, Ireland is necessarily complicit in any concerted EU military action because it has to have given its assent.

That does require a certain distrust of the Irish government - the assumption that they will allow things that we as citizens would not.

However, this all seems to rely on there being a common defence, in which we're involved. The Constitutional amendment:

Quote :

15° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to—

i Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this
section, or
ii Article 1.49 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10° of
this section,

where that common defence would include the State.

would rather seem to preclude that, since Ireland will not be part of that common defence.

Well put - since the military side of the lisbon treaty is more the intergovernmental side of the EU as opposed to the Federal side of the EU - isnt this all rather academic - the only way we will sign up to a common defense policy is through the will of the people either expressed by the directly elected government of the day or by referendum

And you put your finger on 90% of the No camps modus operandi in this current debate - they implicitedly do not trust the government or any likely government in the near future going on recent poll figures.

All the major issues that have come up in this debate are decisions that will be made within the national arena - not outside it or have them imposed from outside.

In a way this whole referendum gives the various groupings on the No side - who collectively have, being generous here ,between 10-15% of the first preference votes cast in the last election, a much larger platform to campaign on these issues that they have plainly failed to convince anyone of in the national arena.

Dont know if I properly expressed that last bit - having a problem getting the right words and terminology - but in essence they are fighting domestic issues by proxy - the EU commission or the council of ministers will not have the final word on many of these issues - we will here at home.

True - the funny thing is that a favourite argument is sovereignty / national self-determination - by a government they don't trust, who are elected on not very different terms, and who are currently a whole lot less transparent than the EU.

It does seem a bit weird to argue that we should not hand power over to the EU for fear of what our government might do in the EU, but instead keep it at home in the hands of the self-same government...but perhaps the subtext is "and then it will all be OK when we're elected".

Youngdan has shown the way to all kind of good things, including this explanation by Vladimir Bukowsky of how the EU Convergancy is a conspiracy by the Communist Party. "This is why the EU Parliament is modelled on the Supreme Soviet and the Commission like the Politburo"

Commission, Council, Court & Parliament.

Or CCCP for short

In a certain sense, the way the EU confuses people is hilarious. Professional and academic analyses of it find that it is a unique experiment in sharing sovereignty between independent nations.

Almost everyone else immediately assume it must be the same as x, or y, usually whatever they have the greatest familiarity with, or fear of.

Irish nationalists see it as an empire, British nationalists either as a new Napoleonic Empire, a Fourth Reich, or a Socialist hegemony. US commentators tend to see at a Communist Superstate. Interesting, but not amazing, then, that a Soviet dissident should see it as a reprise of the Soviet Union.

ibis wrote:

In a certain sense, the way the EU confuses people is hilarious. Professional and academic analyses of it find that it is a unique experiment in sharing sovereignty between independent nations.

Almost everyone else immediately assume it must be the same as x, or y, usually whatever they have the greatest familiarity with, or fear of.

Irish nationalists see it as an empire, British nationalists either as a new Napoleonic Empire, a Fourth Reich, or a Socialist hegemony. US commentators tend to see at a Communist Superstate. Interesting, but not amazing, then, that a Soviet dissident should see it as a reprise of the Soviet Union.

Nicely observed, Ibis.

Patronising in the extreme.