Neutrality? Ah, shure you an yer oul neutrality!

by prop Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:09

''This section now requires registration.''

please post the whole article

because:

a) to read the article requires registration

b) it will annoy ray

c) especially b)

by MG Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:53

Unless Europe finds the solidarity, intelligence, courage and will to challenge and resist American power, Europe itself will deserve Alexander Herzen's declaration--"We are not the doctors. We are the disease".

http://www.counterpunch.org/pinter1213.html

by Phuq Hedd Mon Dec 16, 2002 20:44

The far-reaching report calls for the end of veto rights to block military operations and the creation of new mutual defence and "solidarity" clauses.

In a long, detailed series of recommendations, it also demands the creation of a new EU armaments agency and for military research to be funded by the Union.

The final paper, which has been seen by the Irish Independent, was not agreed by the full committee, with the Green TD, John Gormley and representatives from Finland and Sweden - both neutral states - distancing themselves from the conclusions.
----------8<--------------8<-----------------
I don't know how accurate Sweeney's report is. Do you have other sources that provide a different interpretation?

by MG Tue Dec 17, 2002 09:21

Sorry Ms Hedd,

I meant the counterpunch article has nothing to do with common defence. (I just thought it was interesting, but didn't want to post it as a copied-and-pasted "new" article). The Europe Convention proposals are obviously the materialisation of all the fears that anti-Nice campaigners expressed about neutrality over the past two years.

The media - including Conor Sweeney - are now crying foul about the EU messing with Ireland's neutrality. This is the same media which hoodwinked the Irish people into believing that Europe is not a threat to Irish neutrality.

Under the Convention proposals, as I interpret them, an attack on one EU state would represent an attack on the EU and all member states would be required to assist in the defence of the country that was attacked. This would not necessarily mean military defence, but all states would be required to provide political "solidarity" and to make all EU institutions available for the defence of the attacked country.

Aside from the fact that this would destroy any pretence of neutrality and sovereignty in Ireland, I also wonder how it would apply if, for instance, Spain and Morocco had a row over the islands and colonies that Spain is refusing to return to Morocco. Personally, I consider these territories to be colonial outposts that rightly belong to Morocco, not Spain. However, should the two sides engage militarily, would all other EU countries be obliged to support Spain?

by Phuq Hedd Tue Dec 17, 2002 21:20

Counterpunch has carried a few interesting pieces on the Nice referendum. It'll be interesting to see if any of the journos that were so busy avoiding or dismissing the neutrality issue will now admit that they lobbied for a dilution of democracy.