This is an extract from: http://www.irishantiwar.org/node/189
"Irish participation in the Nordic Battlegroups was slipped through the Dail at midnight on July 4th 2006 after only a few hours of debate. Twelve TDs voted against - the Greens, Sinn Fein, 3 Independents and Joe Higgins. The Labour Party abstained! Referring to these Battlegroups, that hardly raised an eyebrow in Irish media circles, BBC correspondent Paul Reynolds stated: "The EU has quietly acquired what might be described as a standing army."
And now part of that "standing army" - including an Irish Battlegroup, but with a much greater French contingent - finds itself in the former French colony of Chad. We are all aware of the dangers that lie there, especially as France has over the past couple of years been supporting the President of Chad, a dictator, in his battles with rebels ( or will they soon be described as "terrorists"). The Irish troops are there to protect refugees, but the fear is they will be sucked into the bigger conflict between the rebels and the regime in Chad.
What the human cost of our participation in this "standing army" remains unknown. But one thing is sure, the financial cost will be prohibitive. The Irish Defence Budget for 2008 is a whopping €1.078 billion. It is estimated €60 million of this will be used to fund our adventure in Chad. And if the authors of the Lisbon Treaty have their way Irish "defence" spending is certain to increase. Article 28(3) of the Lisbon Treaty states: "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities". More money for warfare means less for health care."
Irish participation in the Nordic Battlegroups was slipped through the Dail at midnight on July 4th 2006 after only a few hours of debate.
(and sorry for posting last comment in wrong place - was replying to Frank (?) who said Lisbon had nothing to do with neutrality. What a thread eh! Is 200 comments long for here?
Of course there is an honest opposition, but I'm afraid it's a relatively small part of the electorate, or the debate wouldn't have been run in terms of lies and fear-mongering.
I assumed you lived in Ireland Colman. And I don't want to be coming across like I am in a position to know better than others interested in this issue. I like this site - usually lurk - and only stick my nose in when I think I have something to contribute that isn't being contributed already.
Sorry, I'm grumpy today. Extra grumpy in fact.
What did get my goat was the way in which a well funded front for two businessmen with close links to the US security establishment were able to get equal time and space to almost all the political parties with about 90% of the vote in all of our general elections.
We were bough for a couple of million quid and a clever appeal to nationalistic instincts.
However the Left element of the NO vote probably only accounted for perhaps 5% of the vote (I count Sinn Fein as more fascist than socialist) and the major portion of the no vote was made up of wildly disparate groups and reasons almost none of which had much to do with the Lisbon Treaty itself.
Don't get me wrong. Ultimately the political establishment have got to take the responsibility for putting a very poorly drafted and explained proposal to the Irish people. The days of blind trust (or when Fianna Fail could put a donkey on the ballot paper and still win) are long gone.
My big concern is not that things will not now change, but that they will (from an Irish perspective) change for the worse rather than the better as a consequence of this vote. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
