Lisbon Treaty ... what might have been (slightly tounge in cheek)

[Shamrock145]

I've deliberately not posted this before the results of the referendum just in case it was too political. I'm not trying to open a political debate on the pros or cons of the treaty, just what the effect of one article may have been on the Air Corps, nor am I advocating one position or another (and I'm not going tell you what way I voted either).

So, Article 28 A[42] part 3 sated

3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as "the European Defence Agency") shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

(emphasis added by me)

So, what might a "progressive improvement" of Air Corps military capacities have looked like? If an 'external' EU agency were to roll up to Casement what might their evaluation have been of the necessary improvements? Might it have been possible that, had the treaty been passed, if such an agency were allowed to "promote measures to satisfy" any requirements they may have identified, there could have been Air Corps jets with "Part Funded by the EU" emblazoned on the side?

...145

[SousaTeuszii]

No it wouldnt.
The main reason for a multinational force is because single countries are finding it harder to shoulder the burden of having their own standalone army. France are on the cusp of cutting forces by 20,000. Do you really think they would give money into an EU pot to see an asset sit in a hanger in Ireland.
ST

[Hyper Crispy]

Weeeelllll,

No, I don't think aircraft would have been on the agenda. Unless the Irish govt were prepared to make a serious contribution to an airlift or heavy helicopter capability. Otherwise, I reckon improvements in radar coverage and tactical support packages were more likely, cos they are cheaper and more flexible. With a FARP or FOB capability, the loggies would be in great demand! With a tactical radar and TACP/CAS facility coupled with this, the Irish may become serious movers in low level conflicts. In addition, more expenditure on ground capabilities, such as proper armour and AD assets would again be cheaper and provide a bigger fist in any EU BG.

[SousaTeuszii]

Have to agree Hyper. The only problem is that due to Irelands military stance everything owned by the DF would have to be replicated elsewhere in the event that Ireland deciedes not to fight. Hence no funding for equipment that may never see a combined EU operation let alone be on 24/7 standyby for any operation called for by the EU without complaint.
ST

[Fouga23]

I'm glad you guys voted against!