Sweden: Who needs NATO when you have the Lisbon Treaty?

EU Observer ^ | 22.04.13 @ 17:50 | Andrew Rettman

[Olog-hai]

Swedish defense minister Karin Enstrom has said her country is not in NATO partly because the EU treaty contains its own security guarantee.

Speaking to EUobserver at the GLOBSEC conference in Bratislava on Saturday (20 April), she said: “If you really read it, the Lisbon Treaty says you must support your EU neighbors with all the necessary means.”

Referring to Lisbon’s article 42.7, she noted: “Since the EU is not a military alliance, it’s not like article five [NATO’s collective security clause], but there is this line which says all EU member states must support any other member state if it’s attacked or if it’s affected by a natural disaster.” …

Sweden, Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland and Malta are the only EU states that are not also NATO members. …

[Olog-hai]

They sure will regret that. Or maybe not, since the Stockholm Program for the EUSSR’s eventual surveillance state is named after their capital . . . (they had to pass the treaty to find out what’s in it?)

[KarlInOhio]

but there is this line which says all EU member states must support any other member state if it’s attacked or if it’s affected by a natural disaster.” …

Support being defined as a hug and a pat on the back from Angela Merkel. Maybe a nice sympathy bouquet if the invasion is really bad.

[Olog-hai]

You never know just how hawkish that collective may turn. The wrong member state hasn’t been attacked, after all . . .

[allendale]

Really think about it. Who is going to attack Sweden and if by some chance they were attacked, would the death of one American sent to defend Sweden be justified? Getting very hard to justify any American deaths in Europe, the Mideast or Asia.

[Olog-hai]

Ever notice that every place the USA vacates, its enemies rush in?