Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ireland and the EU: Defending our common European home

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ireland and the EU: Defending our common European home

    Calls for open debate on Irish security and defence

    Fine Gael's four MEPs have said that given new security threats, it is time to open a debate on Irish security and defence.

    Speaking this morning, Fine Gael MEP Brian Hayes said their discussion document was not a Fine Gael or government paper and that they were not advocating the creation of an EU army or the increased militarisation of Europe.

    He said they were asking how collaboration can be enhanced while respecting traditions of all EU members.

    The document makes ten recommendations.

    They include supporting the development of a European Defence Union which would be subject to Ireland's traditional position of military non-alignment.

    It also proposes redefining the concept of Irish neutrality to allow active engagement in international security operations but again, to remain non-military aligned.

    It also suggests amending the 'triple lock' for the deployment of Irish troops on peacekeeping missions which currently requires UN authorisation, a government decision and a Dáil vote.

    Where UN approval has been blocked to allow deployment in times of crisis or natural disaster, it suggests a two thirds majority vote in the Dáil.

    Another option would be to change the UN authorisation part of the triple lock with "UN authorisation or EU council decision".

    Other recommendations include increasing defence spending, setting up a central intelligence unit to interact with the European unit, establishing a national cyber security strategy and also a national security council, as well as developing Ireland's defence industry.

    It also suggests there should be plans put in place for a post-Brexit situation with close cooperation continuing between Ireland and UK.
    Fine Gael's four MEPs have said that, given new security threats, it is time to open a debate on Irish security and defence.


    Ireland and the EU: Defending our common European home

  • #2
    Looks very like the status quo to me

    Comment


    • #3
      "Proposes redefining the concept of Irish neutrality to allow active engagement in international security operations but again, to remain non-military aligned.

      It also suggests amending the 'triple lock' for the deployment of Irish troops on peacekeeping missions which currently requires UN authorisation, a government decision and a Dáil vote.

      Where UN approval has been blocked to allow deployment in times of crisis or natural disaster, it suggests a two thirds majority vote in the Dáil.

      Another option would be to change the UN authorisation part of the triple lock with "UN authorisation or EU council decision".

      Other recommendations include increasing defence spending, setting up a central intelligence unit to interact with the European unit, establishing a national cyber security strategy and also a national security council, as well as developing Ireland's defence industry."

      Allow active engagement in international security operations (as opposed to PSO)
      Change triple lock to omit requirement of UN approval
      Change triple lock to include and / or EU approval
      Change Dail approval to two thirds majority
      Increase defence spending
      Develop a defence industry

      Status quo???? Mick and Clare, et al are probably spinning at 360 rpm at the thoughts of any single point above. With these proposals a strong majority gov could potentially decide to send troops overseas with minimal opposition. Nevermind the uproar at spending money on defence instead of homelessness, health, etc. or having an evil baby killing arms industry on the island!!
      An army is power. Its entire purpose is to coerce others. This power can not be used carelessly or recklessly. This power can do great harm. We have seen more suffering than any man should ever see, and if there is going to be an end to it, it must be an end that justifies the cost. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

      Comment


      • #4
        It would be fair to say Ireland's military neutrality never went much futher than not being involved in anything the brits are involved in.
        Thats as far as joe public's arguement (and SF/IRA) will go in any event.
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • #5
          Their recommendations:
          1 CSDP exists
          2 the Nordics have close Defence integration but it more co-operative than a defence union
          3 yes changing the triple lock is a change
          4 no change
          5 Government policy
          6 isn’t that what’s possibly happening? No talk of an EU agency though
          7 there is one
          8 there is one but informal
          9 early stages
          10 the MOU is bilateral (nothing to do with EU)

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm not really sure how the above recommendations can co-exist with Irish neutrality. A European Defence Union would need to have a common purpose - defend Europe. That would also require alignment of a sort and thus an end to neutrality.

            The cornerstone of European defence already exists and that's NATO. Perhaps this a suggestion towards movement into NATO through the back door even though these FG are clearly not going to publicly state that?

            Realistically a move towards increasing spending to become a functioning member of such a 'Union' would require large scale investment beyond a few hundred million euro a year. The capital expenditure to give the Air Corps and Naval Service modern capable weapon systems in even bery low numbers would be eye-watering relative to the public's current appetite for defence spending.

            Getting up on my soapbox here but I think you'd be looking at shopping list like the below:

            Army:
            - Rationalisation of current units to reflect actual strength.
            - More infantry.
            - More light artillery.
            - Investment in air defence.
            - Increased troop numbers to reflect the above.

            Naval Service
            - One and most likely two light frigates with the armament and crew training involved.

            Air Corps
            - More helicopter lift capacity
            - A small number of fighter aircraft to provide local defence.
            - Maritime patrol aircraft that can deal with more than an errant fishing trawler/drug smuggler.
            Last edited by Auldsod; 11 March 2018, 22:14.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm not really sure how the above recommendations can co-exist with Irish neutrality. A European Defence Union would need to have a common purpose - defend Europe. That would also require alignment of a sort and thus an end to neutrality.
              Good job we are not neutral then.We are Militarily non aligned. Nowhere in our constitution does it say we are neutral.


              Realistically a move towards increasing spending to become a functioning member of such a 'Union' would require large scale investment beyond a few hundred million euro a year. The capital expenditure to give the Air Corps and Naval Service modern capable weapon systems in even bery low numbers would be eye-watering relative to the public's current appetite for defence spending.
              If we are truly "Neutral" as some believe then let's look at the likes of Switzerland.A country that spends real money on it's forces in order to defend its neutrality.
              Compare that with Ireland. The Irish people have been sold a myth by left wing peaceniks who believe that being neutral means not spending money on defence when the opposite is very,very true.
              "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

              Comment


              • #8
                We like to think we are as neutral as Switzerland, when in fact we are as neutral as Belgium during the 2nd World war.
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by apod View Post
                  Good job we are not neutral then.We are Militarily non aligned. Nowhere in our constitution does it say we are neutral.




                  If we are truly "Neutral" as some believe then let's look at the likes of Switzerland.A country that spends real money on it's forces in order to defend its neutrality.
                  Compare that with Ireland. The Irish people have been sold a myth by left wing peaceniks who believe that being neutral means not spending money on defence when the opposite is very,very true.
                  To be honest, most Irish people care little for the politics of neutrality. Spending on defence is seen as a waste of money. That's until there is an actual threat to the country at which point it will be far far too late.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Auldsod View Post
                    I'm not really sure how the above recommendations can co-exist with Irish neutrality. A European Defence Union would need to have a common purpose - defend Europe. That would also require alignment of a sort and thus an end to neutrality.

                    The cornerstone of European defence already exists and that's NATO. Perhaps this a suggestion towards movement into NATO through the back door even though these FG are clearly not going to publicly state that?
                    That is the UK's view of the issue. It is not, however most continental countries' view. Have a look at the relevant pieces of the TEU (Lisbon treaty)

                    Art.42 7. "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States."

                    Thus is basically the EU's version of NATO's Art.5 and BTW commits the EU nations to defend Ireland.

                    Originally posted by Auldsod View Post
                    Realistically a move towards increasing spending to become a functioning member of such a 'Union' would require large scale investment beyond a few hundred million euro a year. The capital expenditure to give the Air Corps and Naval Service modern capable weapon systems in even bery low numbers would be eye-watering relative to the public's current appetite for defence spending.

                    Getting up on my soapbox here but I think you'd be looking at shopping list like the below:

                    Army:
                    - Rationalisation of current units to reflect actual strength.
                    - More infantry.
                    - More light artillery.
                    - Investment in air defence.
                    - Increased troop numbers to reflect the above.

                    Naval Service
                    - One and most likely two light frigates with the armament and crew training involved.

                    Air Corps
                    - More helicopter lift capacity
                    - A small number of fighter aircraft to provide local defence.
                    - Maritime patrol aircraft that can deal with more than an errant fishing trawler/drug smuggler.
                    mostly concur

                    Army:

                    - purchase NEMO/AMOS and firefinder radar.
                    - get onboard on CAMM
                    - get onboard on SPEAR
                    - develop high level ISTAR facilities with battlefield radar, drones, smart soldier equipment etc.

                    AC:

                    - as discussed, recommit the AW39s to civilan uses as air ambulance and VIP transport
                    - buy 10t choppers with capability of deployment internationally
                    - don't buy the CASAs. Buy KingAir MPA/ISTAR birds and a few Air Ambulances. P24 looks good. Then join EATC to get what little lift capability we need from our buddies and contribute our air ambulances

                    NS:

                    - get two LSS/AOR with hospita and 200 lane metres for vehicles. These will be worth gold on international deployments
                    - maybe later get two light frigates or corvettes. I still like the Fassmer OPV2020. Again also with desaster recovery features

                    In general I think Ireland should focus on support functions and force multiplying functions rather than frontline. Oh and get rid of the 28th amendment

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                      That is the UK's view of the issue. It is not, however most continental countries' view. Have a look at the relevant pieces of the TEU (Lisbon treaty)

                      Art.42 7. "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States."

                      Thus is basically the EU's version of NATO's Art.5 and BTW commits the EU nations to defend Ireland....
                      no, it doesn't, and no, no one else in the EU considers C42 to have replaced NATO, or that the CSDP of the EU has replaced NATO as the central tennet of European defence.

                      no one.

                      of course, i only work in a deployable NATO HQ formation along with Soldiers from most of the EU, am currently in Estonia, and either i or people i work with meet senior diplomats, CS, military Officers, and politicians from most EU countries on a weekly basis, so its possible that i've got the wrong end of the stick...

                      42.7 requires other EU states, in accordance with their own defence, security and defence policies, to render such assistance as they see fit. so, for example, were Poland to be invaded and occupied, its political and civil society liquidated, its infrastructure devastated and its population enslaved, as long as other EU states make a decision, any decision, about whether and what with to assist Poland, then it will have fullfilled its treaty commitments. though, of course, Ireland didn't sign up to the recprical element of that commitment...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Auldsod View Post
                        To be honest, most Irish people care little for the politics of neutrality. Spending on defence is seen as a waste of money. That's until there is an actual threat to the country at which point it will be far far too late.
                        True, We have never being subjected to the same lessons as the likes of Holland Denmark Norway have.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                          no, it doesn't, and no, no one else in the EU considers C42 to have replaced NATO, or that the CSDP of the EU has replaced NATO as the central tennet of European defence.

                          no one.

                          of course, i only work in a deployable NATO HQ formation along with Soldiers from most of the EU, am currently in Estonia, and either i or people i work with meet senior diplomats, CS, military Officers, and politicians from most EU countries on a weekly basis, so its possible that i've got the wrong end of the stick...

                          42.7 requires other EU states, in accordance with their own defence, security and defence policies, to render such assistance as they see fit. so, for example, were Poland to be invaded and occupied, its political and civil society liquidated, its infrastructure devastated and its population enslaved, as long as other EU states make a decision, any decision, about whether and what with to assist Poland, then it will have fullfilled its treaty commitments. though, of course, Ireland didn't sign up to the recprical element of that commitment...
                          I never said that it replaced NATO. I am not sure how you get this idea. I see it as a parallel structure and a tool for further integration of defence inside the EU. Also a tool that allows to integrate the non-aligned EU members with the aligned ones. It also serves IMO as a potential tool for mutual security in case the US decide to not honour their obligations. Which for a while looked quite plausible.

                          I'd actually be interested to hear what you can share about your experience and views where this is going. And what the people you work with and meet think.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                            no, it doesn't, and no, no one else in the EU considers C42 to have replaced NATO, or that the CSDP of the EU has replaced NATO as the central tennet of European defence.

                            no one.

                            of course, i only work in a deployable NATO HQ formation along with Soldiers from most of the EU, am currently in Estonia, and either i or people i work with meet senior diplomats, CS, military Officers, and politicians from most EU countries on a weekly basis, so its possible that i've got the wrong end of the stick...

                            42.7 requires other EU states, in accordance with their own defence, security and defence policies, to render such assistance as they see fit. so, for example, were Poland to be invaded and occupied, its political and civil society liquidated, its infrastructure devastated and its population enslaved, as long as other EU states make a decision, any decision, about whether and what with to assist Poland, then it will have fullfilled its treaty commitments. though, of course, Ireland didn't sign up to the recprical element of that commitment...
                            I never said that it replaced NATO. I am not sure how you get this idea. I see it as a parallel structure and a tool for further integration of defence inside the EU. Also a tool that allows to integrate the non-aligned EU members with the aligned ones. It also serves IMO as a potential tool for mutual security in case the US decide to not honour their obligations. Which for a while looked quite plausible.

                            I'd actually be interested to hear what you can share about your experience and views where this is going. And what the people you work with and meet think.

                            I would like to add the EP's view on the subject:

                            "Mutual assistance (defence) clause
                            Article 42(7) TEU introduced a 'mutual assistance (defence) clause'. The clause, inspired by
                            Article V
                            of the
                            modified Western European Union Treaty, stipulates that in the event that a Member
                            State is 'the victim of
                            armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and
                            assistance by all the means in their power', in accordance with
                            Article 51 of the UN Charter
                            and without
                            prejudice to the specific defence 'character' of each Member State (for example, the neutral status of
                            certain Member States or NATO commitments). The clause covers collective defence and allows M
                            ember
                            States to offer both military and civilian support to their counterpart invoking the clause.
                            "

                            Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegDat...9573285_EN.pdf

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Defend ourselves against whom exactly?

                              We can't compare ourselves to the Swiss - we have two big neighbours who would indeed look after our interests. That's why the "peacekniks" don't want money spent on defence as for it to be of any real use it'd be huge

                              Threat to our security comes from internal sources such as terrorism, political and/or religious, or lone attackers so our defence needs to be based around that. Get intercept fighters that can take down rogue planes, and enough to patrol our waters from air and sea, but we don't need large infantry and artillery formations as there is no onus on us to defend anyone other than the Indian nation that came to our aid and possibly France based on their small historical aid.

                              Also note to me, Europe is a continent, not my home.
                              Last edited by The Connaught Ranger; 20 March 2018, 14:14.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X