Workers of Europe Unite You Have Nothing to Loose but…a Midly Social Democratic Reformist Treaty!
Posted by Michael in Charter Fundamental Rights, EU Law on September 4th, 2009
One of the more genuine civil society groups to emerge from the Trade Unions is The Charter Group. As the names suggests they see the legal status Lisbon proposes for the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Treaty as a major step forward for workers.
Not a great victory for the workers as they march across Europe; yet not a charter for neo liberalism either. Just a step forward.
In fact, it is rare for the language of left or right to predominate in the basic law of any state. Most independent academics note that the history of the EU has been one of a compromise between the forces of Christian Democracy and Social Democracy: a compromise, which secured a single market combined with a high degree of social protection.
In terms of Ireland, practically all socially progressive legislation has emanated from Europe, such as equal pay, maternity leave, the working time directive etc. Yet it is not the various treaties per se that deliver these measures into law. Rather it is the political make-up of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, which decides this agenda even if the Treaty is a prerequisite to make it possible.
With Joe Higgins now in the campaign as an MEP, I suspect we may hear lot more about these issues. He has argued that Lisbon is a “charter for neo liberalism and privatisation”. Recently, at the National Forum on Europe, I invited Joe to do a search of the PDF of the consolidated version of the treaty to find the word privatisation.
Guess what: it’s not there!
Now competition is and always has been a competence of the EU (think airlines, telecoms what we paid years ago and what we pay now). This is the power that allowed the EU fine Microsoft, one of the largest corporations in the world!
In actual fact, Lisbon changes little in this respect. So if people are opposed to EU competition policy they need to start the campaign to repeal the current treaties, which effectively means leaving the EU.
However there are new provisions in Lisbon relating to workers rights and various progressive issues. And the Charter is the most obvious. It is now given the full legal force of treaty law.
I will try to avoid over egging my argument here. The charter is deliberately limited to the EU institutions but also, importantly, to the member states when they are implementing EU law.
The other major area of controversy and debate in this area is a series of recent European Court of Justice rulings on issues of workers rights. Here Higgins and Coir would both have us believe that our entire system of social protection will be removed. Yet all these cases were taken under the treaties as they stand today.
Of course it is not even true that the current treaties led directly to these cases (For Ruffert, Laval, Viking and Luxembourg: see the Charter group’s case file).
In truth, it was the transposition of the Posting of Workers Directive into domestic law that gave rise to the problems in mainly Scandinavian countries who have different systems of labour market regulation. Ironically, it is Ireland’s legally enforceable minimum wage is one of the reasons why the same rulings could not have been made in relation to similar cases here!
So then the question is whether such rulings are more or less likely under Lisbon. Certainly the elevation of the Charter to the same level as the treaty suggests things will change if Lisbon is passed. It also provides for the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights: a very progressive legal instrument.
The Treaty also contains, for the first time ever, a commitment to public services (Art 14 TFEU & Protocol on Services of General Economic Interest) and full employment (Art 3 TEU). These were both key demands of the left in the European Convention, which drew up the previous Constitutional Treaty. So all in all Lisbon is one of the most progressive treaties that the EU has produced.
Maybe some people just need to look at it in a little more detail.
First published on Slugger O’Toole http://www.sluggerotoole.com/You Will Loose…any Sense of Proportion or Reason!
Posted by Michael in The campaign on September 3rd, 2009
I started getting furtive emails and texts last week-end, “have you seen them?” “I don’t agree but they are great as political art!” “These guys are really setting the agenda”. Yes it’s time for the Coir posters again. It appears like another Yes side blind spot. About 20 years ago (gulp) I was a member of the Labour Party in Dun Laoghaire. There was a young terrier called Eamon Gilmore making a lot of noise in the constituency for the Workers Party. “He has people everywhere” they whispered in Labour “They’re organised into street committees” We were near to giving up, how could we compete with these black arts, us with mere leaflets and volunteers! Fast forward to 2002 when I was on Eamons leadership campaign team (the unsuccessful one!).
Me: “Tell me Eamon how did the Workers Party organise those street committees back in the 80’s”
Gilmore: “What Street Committees? Never heard of them!”
Sometimes our own sense of insecurity leads us to puff up and exaggerate the opponent for some reason, perhaps to give us the ready made excuse when we are unsuccessful, and so it is with Coir and EU referenda. During the Nice 1 campaign they emerged with a novel concept, a direct no nonsense poster that summed up the fears of many “You Will Loose, Power, Money, Influence” in stark lettering using a simple clear colour scheme they were considered highly influential. That poster at that time undoubtedly was, but that was 8 years ago. Can anybody remember any of the other ones?
As with most marketing campaigns success lies in innovation and new thinking. Rather like the great British sitcoms, limited numbers and exposure provides the greatest potency. Do we remember the Coir posters from Nice 2 (ok one or two…gun to head etc.) Maybe Lisbon 1, “Don’t be bullied” I have no problem saying it out straight. Coir posters aren’t so great. Naturally I don’t agree with them but I mean as pieces of political material. They are dated, jaded and a repetitious formula that is out of step with where the electorate are at. So stop whispering about them yes campaigners. Now unfortunately the Yes side have not distinguished themselevs in the postering stakes either.
Let’s examine them one by one. Firstly anything with 1916 leaders on it talking about freedom and all that appeals to the 0.1% of people who vote for Republican Sinn Fein or whatever, plus barstool republicans who do what Fianna Fail tell them. Its what’s called appealing to the base, sometimes necessary in elections, never in referenda. Another poster quotes Charlie Mc Creevey as saying 95% of Europeans would vote against Lisbon. I don’t think the Irish electorate could care less about this, they are examining their own lives and situation and the only major European issue they are reflecting on is the effects, if any, on our economy. Next they present half the picture on voting weights, a common approach from the entire No campaign which will need to be countered.
However if the debate on the street actually gets into the two elements of double majority voting things will be looking up I reckon. Simply telling the electorate that the No side is deliberately only presenting half the picture on voting weights will leave them feeling a little betrayed I feel. The coup de grace for many will be the claim that our minimum wage will be €1.85 after Lisbon. Now if I was making some spurious claim about migrant labour or something (which presumably this is) I would at least take a figure close to Ireland’s current minimum wage of €8.65 (which practically nobody earns!) or maybe some of the figures suggested by IBEC. Most of the electorate posses some common sense and will see straight through this nonsense. The biggest mistake campaigners on either side can make is to underestimate their electorate or be out of step with their lives.
Lisbon is not necessarily an easy sell but any debate must be related to the economic and political crisis the country faces. The Treaty is not primarily about the economy but it seems reasonable to argue that Ireland’s relationship with Europe is. Yes campaigners should not be intimated by Coir bluster. Their posters are increasingly relics of how campaigns used to be…oh and “Vote No” isn’t in large enough font!
From the Start…Title I
Posted by Michael in Lisbon Treaty Title by Title on September 1st, 2009
There must be tonnes of newsprint and trillions of gigabytes published on the Lisbon Treaty yet it is hard to find anywhere a blow by blow explanatory guide of the treaty. The Yes and No groups, the Government and the Referendum Commission all produce guides and summaries but in each instance they are selecting what is and isn’t important. They also in my view cow tow to the idea that the whole thing is way to complex for the ordinary person. It’s not. Once you have a copy of the consolidated text you can read the whole thing. The annotated version available online shows the changes aswell. Playing the complexity card strengthens the idea that this is impenetrable stuff.
Very few groups, certainly in the online sphere, have produced an article by article guide. This is important as a huge number of questions in the referenda debates relate to things already agreed or not even agreed. So the idea here in a few short weeks is to produce such a guide in hopefully understandable terms, with some commentary and an idea of what has changed and what has not. All this of course is from a Yes perspective so log off now if that offends you. Of course my view is that any reasonable and objective step by step analysis of the Treaty inevitably leads to support for it.
In most cases nobody would disagree with what are the important issues. However the way debate goes all sorts of things are dragged in to the debate, things which aren’t in the Treaty and often not even in the realm of the powers of the EU. So just looking at the Treaty itself is not always enough, some history and context are required. As always the numbering is that used by the IIEA which is effectively the numbering which will apply if they treaty is passed.
The structure of the treaties is fairly straightforward. The original treaty of Rome founded the coal and steel communities and EEC. Maastricht established the EU which developed areas such as foreign policy, the single currency and the idea of EU action in the field of justice and home affairs. The core of the EU for many years was the single market and things which derived from it. More integrated decision making also developed in this area. Since Maastricht two treaties have existed side by side and one of the major changes from the idea of an EU constitution is to maintain this approach rather than collapsing everything in to one document and approach effectively scrapped after the French and Dutch No votes.
The Treaty of European Union (TEU) originally signed at Maastricht is substantially amended and the Treaty of Rome in renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Treaty of European Union is about 40 pages. Many of the changes proposed originated in the convention on Europe which consisted of elected representatives, this followed the Laeken Declaration which sought to simplify and make relevant the EU and its structures. Ironically it was the No Votes in Holland and France which heralded a return to a relatively more cumbersome structure.
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is longer at xx pages but largely contains most of the historic legal basis of the old EC in the fields of the single market and associated measures. It I reasonable then to ask anybody quoting form these sections wether the provision they are referring to is actually new or has existed for a long period of time and has effectively been endorsed by the people in a previous referendum. This is a fair question to those who reassure is they are not opposed to the EU but just the way Lisbon is bringing it.
The preamble has been changed in the TEU, this was somewhat controversial as a large lobby to have specific reference to Christianity was resisted with a compromise text inserted referring to “religious and humanist heritage”
The first substantial section (Title I) in the new TEU is entitled Common Provisions. This emerged form a desire in the Convention and amongst leaders to set out clearly the role and functions of the EU. These opening articles are important as they are effectively available to the ECJ in interpreting other aspects of the Treaty texts.
Article One effectively announces the foundation of the European Union which now covers the two treaties. It sets out the need to have open decision making close to the people, this as a common provision applies to the rest of the text.
Article Two sets out the values the EU is founded on including respect for human rights, non discrimination, tolerance and equality between men and women. For those who would dismiss these as flights of rhetoric we must again bear in mind the important legal role of the common provisions. This is a new statement
Article Three summarises some of the main aims of the union in terms of promoting peace, the internal market, combating social exclusion, the Euro and principals in it’s relations with the world which are consistent with the UN Charter. These articles emphasise the need for subsidiarily (decision making as close to the people as possible) and conferral where the EU can only do what it’s member states require of it.
Article Four helpfully sets out what the EU does and what the member states do and how the EU must respect member states and their roles. States must also implement policies agreed together in the Union
Article Five elaborates on the concepts of conferral and subsidiarity. A Protocol is also attached to the treaty on subsidiarity and National Parliaments
Article Six commits the EU to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and also sets out it’s limitations, it also provides for the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights which will apply to the EU and it’s institutions as well as all the member states who have signed it
Article Seven provides for a mechanism to deal with member states who transgress the fundamental values of the EU. This is a new provision and arises form the controversy over the Freedom Party in Austria several years ago. The provisions have a number of safeguards and effectively require a 4/5 majority of member states.
Article Eight provides for relationships with the EU’s neighbours and sets out the values that govern these.
Much of this is new or replaces articles largely arising from the work of the Convention which sought to simplify and consolidate the text and the functions of the EU
Sinking Feeling?
Posted by Michael in The campaign on August 29th, 2009
For the Yes campaign admitting we have problems is half the battle!
Labour Councillor Joe Ryan feels the Yes campaign is faltering
I give my tuppence worth to Slugger O’Toole
The Irish Times hosts and email duel!!
As the Muppet show might say…why don’t we get things started!
Forget the British Sausage…what about the Irish Water!
Posted by Michael in The campaign on August 26th, 2009
Jim Hacker knew a thing or two about politics UK style, his infamous defence of the British Sausage saw him into Number 10 in a comedy series that we now know owed a lot more to real politics than was admitted at the time. Comedy or not many the domestic politician realises that bashing Brussels and the “eurocrats” is good for domestic appeal. Fine as far as it goes politicians have to get by. However the constant euro bashing down the years inevitably comes home too roost. It is hard to have the informed debate that everyone claims to want if prominent politicians insist on passing off all difficult issues and bad news on to the hapless officials in Brussels.
This also applies to over simplifying and reducing what Europe is all about. Like for example explaining the benefits of Europe as being loads and loads of cash and a big free lunch for us like structural funds etc. Down the years those favouring European integration in Ireland unfortunately did the cause little service with this sort of carry on, anybody remember Albert Reynolds promising 7bn for a yes vote in the Maastricht Treaty! While the EU did bring many undoubted benefits it is important to communicate what it does warts and all, the “flags and balloons” approach to the EU does nobody a service. Often the issues are more complicated. The differing institutions and their respective roles viz a viz the national governments can mean communications need to be subtle and nuanced.
So are there many Jim Hackers in the Irish political ferment? Too many unfortunately, all trading on the hope that mere mortals don’t know or won’t find out how things really work. So instead of the Great British Sausage let’s look at the great Irish water debacle. The water framework directive is a major piece of EU legislation to ensure the quality and availability of drinking and other water, a key benefit for European citizens. The directive went through a long and arduous legislative journey with little or no interest from the Irish or indeed many others. In early 2008 it transpired that schools in Ireland would now be liable for water charges.
The general response of the Government (and the Eurosceptics) was…blame the EU. The Questions and Answers programme led with a question “Are we to have a no flush no wash policy in our schools just because Brussels says so?” However unlike many decisions taken in Ireland, it is possible to see the documents when EU decisions were made, another part of the EU democratic system. They’re here http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/00/st12/12294en0.pdf
It’s worth quoting in full
STATEMENT 88/00 Statement by the Irish delegation
“The Irish delegation fully supports the objectives of the Water Framework Directive and its basic provisions. Ireland is satisfied, following legal consultations, that the final text accommodates the case advanced by Ireland in relation to the domestic sector, enabling that sector to continue to be exempt from water charges in accordance with established practice.”
So the Irish Government “fully supported” the adoption of the directive…pass the sausages please Sir Humphrey!
How to Amaze your Friends Down the Pub
Posted by Michael in Charter Fundamental Rights, EU Law, Security and Defence, The campaign on August 20th, 2009
Have You Read it? The most common question journalists ask politicians about the Lisbon Treaty. The answers became symptomatic of the problems in the Lisbon One campaign, here were a bunch of lazy politicians telling us all to vote for something but couldn’t be bothered to read it themselves. Fair enough, if you set yourself up to sell something in today’s PR conscious world you should have a grasp of it. Vincent Browne likes to jump on this bandwagon calling the Treaty impenetrable and impossible. However there is more going on here than meets the eye. The now departed (from the Lisbon campaign at any rate) Declan Ganley waved around what he called the Lisbon Treaty implying it was somehow secretive and hidden. Of course what he had in his hand was actually a propaganda tract from Jens Peter Bonde, a strange bedfellow as a former Danish Communist.
Anyway the news is you can very easily read the Treaty. I’ll say that again, you can very easily read the treaty. Now like everything this needs to be put in context. As most people know EU Treaties have been made by amending the original treaty of Rome. I’m happy to say this is ridiculous and leaves the EU open to accusations of secrecy and garbled euro legalese of which Vincent Browne is so fond. What really matters here is what is in the treaties now and what will be there after we vote. As it happens this is of course available online. Indeed you can have what the treaties will look like if Lisbon is accepted, the current treaties with changes, additions and subtractions in different colours and the actual Lisbon text . The first two are thanks to the Institute for International and European Affairs, I think all sides of this debate recognise the excellent work done in compiling these although I have to declare an interest having worked there some 12 years ago! Links are here http://www.iiea.com/publications?offset=10&max=10&sort=publicationDate&order=desc unfortunately they are no longer free but were in Lisbon 1, not sure why that is. Richard Corbett MEP has them here for free http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/assets/docs/briefing/annotatedtreaties.pdf …not sure about intellectual property rights and all that but it’s a public site.
The treaties are set out in chapters with headings….I know, I know its sooooo complex! I intend to go through most of these headings looking at the changes and the issues involved in the coming weeks. For the moment I will stick to some introductory comments
The first thing people will notice is we are actually talking about two treaties or a set of amendments to two treaties. The Treaty on European Union and The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The latter is effectively the treaties to date with their amendments (single market, freedom of movement etc.) and the former more political and cross cutting principles.
Brother Kelly used to tell me not to use a small word when a large one will do. The EU has taken this up with gusto leading to all sorts of chaos when it comes to the numbering of articles and sections in the treaties. The method of amending treaty after treaty leads to a constant renumbering. Having the two treaties doesn’t help either. The Lisbon Treaty itself contains a note on numbering which is adhered to by the IIEA and I think should be used by everybody. So if you want to amaze your friends down the pub with “Oh yeah I read that” keep logging on!
Why Not!
Posted by Michael in The campaign on July 27th, 2009
Durchgebratenes Deutschland
Posted by Michael in EU Law, The campaign, Uncategorized on July 21st, 2009
Well it’s not many times we say that but reading the judgement of the German Constitutional Court (in summary form at least) gives some very clear insights into EU integration and the Lisbon Treaty. It should also be noted that, around the internet anyway, the judgement has received plaudits form Lisbon yes and no supporters alike.
Most importantly of all the Karlsruhe Court audited Lisbon and the process of EU integration from a democratic standpoint an area where both often come in for unfair (in my view) criticism. The court places a huge emphasis on the concept of conferral which is of course more explicit in the Lisbon Treaty.
It has made some pithy summaries of how EU democracy works and how it does not
“in some fields of policy, the European Union has a
shape that corresponds to that of a federal state,
i.e. is analogous to that of a state. In contrast,
the internal decision-making and appointment procedures remain
predominantly committed to the pattern of an international
organisation, i.e. are analogous to international law;”
The Court is clear that Lisbon does not create a superstate and maintains the foundations of integration in the member state. It even has some interesting points to make about EU and U.N. involvement (the latter in the field of peacekeeping and military operations)
“it is a voluntary, mutual commitment pari passu, which secures
peace and strengthens the possibilities of shaping policy by
joint coordinated action”
For those who believe Lisbon will lead to the sky falling in the Karlsruhe judges opine
“The authorisation to transfer sovereign powers to the European Union
pursuant to Article 23.1 GG is, however, granted under the condition that
the sovereign statehood of a constitutional state is maintained on the basis
of a responsible integration programme according to the principle of
conferral and respecting the Member States’ constitutional identity, and
that at the same time the Federal Republic of Germany does not lose its
ability to politically and socially shape the living conditions on its own
responsibility…It is not a federal state but remains an association of
sovereign states to which the principle of conferral applies. ”
Key to the German courts ruling was that the democratic nature of the EU principally through the European Parliament was not enough to “compensate” for powers that Germany had and was giving up but that critically the solution to this lay in changes to national law and practice in Germany and greater involvement of it’s national parliament.
The Irish courts have dealt with similar questions but obviously in a different context given our constitutional set up. The Crotty case was of course the seminal one which is believed to require a referendum on all EU Treaties in Ireland; however this also bears some more analysis. Crotty was principally decided on the issue of European Political Co-operation (the forerunner of CFSP) and the courts narrowly held that this was a new and innovative area for the EU and therefoe not envisaged by the accession referendum. Whether all treaties since would have passed or failed this test we will never know because the decision to have a referendum was made.
Politically the issue of parliamentary involvement in EU matters and legislation has figured in debates here although perhaps not enough in public debate. The interregnum between Nice 1 and 2 saw work in this area and the National Forum on Europe gave the subject a few outings. A new EU scrutiny Act was introduced and an Oireachtas Committee is dedicated to the task. Many may wish for more an if they do they need to look to Dublin not Brussels
http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-072en.html
Abortion…difficult to understand?
Posted by Michael in Charter Fundamental Rights, Uncategorized on July 14th, 2009
This seems to be hard to understand for some reason (Maastricht Protocol)
“THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES
HAVE AGREED upon the following provision, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European
Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities:
Nothing in the Treaty on European Union, or in the Treaties establishing the European Communities,
or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the
application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland.”
Thus the latest ruse is the Charter on Fundamental Rights. However the charter itself states that it can only be used in relation to the EU Institutions and the implementation of EU law. The Charter states
“Article 51. Scope
- The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. They shall therefore respect the rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof in accordance with their respective powers.
- This Charter does not establish any new power or task for the Community or the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined by the Treaties.”
Therefore it cannot be used in relation to matters where the EU has no competence. EU law cannot be contradictory to the treaties. This is the most simple issue there could be in this debate and continuing attempts to misrepresent the position are clearly designed to ensure people are less not more informed in this debate.
European Defence Agency
Posted by Michael in Security and Defence, Uncategorized on July 2nd, 2009
EU Supported Police in Kinshasa
For a number of people the European Defence Agency has become the bogey man of the Lisbon Treaty. Given the perceived complexity of the whole thing and perhaps due to the legally binding guarantees received by the Government this body provides an easy target after all it’s to do with guns and things so must be bad, right?
As with most aspects of European policy a closer examination provides a different picture. The European Defence Agency already exists having being established in 2004. The purpose of the Lisbon Treaty is to give a solid legal basis to the agency, rather like many agencies in Ireland which have existed on an administrative basis before been put on a statutory footing.
One of the big issues in the evolution of security and defence policy in the EU has been the difficulties in getting forces from several different countries to work together for example in peace-keeping missions in the Balkans. This can be down to different cultures, traditions and languages. However one of the main issues is the lack of interoperable equipment. This can lead to one set of communications systems not been compatible with another, troop transporters being unable to take equipment or radar or reconnaissance equipment not functioning correctly.
When we examine the historical tendency of cold war forces to be trained and orientated towards large scale battles on the plains of Europe as opposed to the inter ethnic strife that they have had to grapple with in the Balkans we can see that despite the rhetoric the EU is far form a military superpower. If it is to provide any assistance in solving conflict it needs to change. The entire point of defence and armaments co-operation in the EU is to address these problems, no more and no less.
Again as with all decisions of the EU the legal basis must be clear and the documentation establishing the EDA is available for all the see and read if they care to. The European Council acting under then Article 14 of the Treaty of European Union adopted Council Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP
On the 12th of July 2004.
The text of the founding document makes it clear that the EDA is subject to the Council of Ministers so cannot get involved in the military adventurism suggested by some. Such meetings will of course be totally open to the public on major matters should Lisbon be adopted.
Critically Article 2 of the founding document makes clear the mission of the Agency namely
“The mission of the Agency is to support the Council and the Member States in their effort to improve the EU’s defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the ESDP as it stands now and develops in the future”
The European Security and Defence Policy is again set out in the Treaties, at the heart of it are the Petersberg Tasks which prioritise peace-keeping and crisis management, areas where Ireland has a considerable background and involvement. Thus the entire role and function of the EDA is to support the EU missions, not wantonly to sell arms around the world. Irish troops serve in several ESDP missions with Dail approval and under a U.N. mandate. Thus the work of the EDA is of critical importance to Ireland and to our foreign policy which informs our participation in such missions.
The ESDP currently has a number of active missions where Irish troops serve and many former ones. For example the provision of policing and security services in Bosnia, Policing and monitoring missions in Kosovo and Georgia. The list goes on to include the Congo, Chad, The Palestinian Authority. One might well ask where is the war mongering here? All these missions involve recovering societies from conflict and providing a new start. They are generally aligned with generous aid packages. This is the essence of the EU’s approach to security policy. It is in support of these missions that we have an EDA.
As with many aspects of the Lisbon debate the Government has moved to reassure the public about a variety of issues. Many people who have followed the integration process for a number of years do not see a great need for this but if these reassurances effectively reaffirm what people knew already what harm. Media reports suggest that legislation on the EDA is to be one of these. Insofar as this makes it clear that as with all aspects of ESDP participation is voluntary, such reassurance are helpful.
The Defence Agency in co-ordinating the defence activities in the member states in the areas of procurement and joint projects can also create more efficiencies and value for money. Despite constant repetition this does not necessarily incur extra expenditure; in many areas it will simply mean a different type of expenditure. For example the reduction in infantry and tank based divisions in favour of smaller special forces to deal with urbanised ethnic conflict and force separation would probably mean less cost. A greater emphasis on technology and dual use resources such as tactical transporters and close air support may also create efficiencies.
The United Nations Brahimi report on peace keeping in 2000 placed a particular emphasis on devolving these duties to regional actors. The EU has taken up the challenge. The U.N. and peacekeeping is at the centre of Irish foreign policy. The EDA assists Europe’s and Ireland’s efforts in this area and is a positive rather than a negative aspect of the Lisbon Treaty.