DEFENCE:EUROPEAN DEFENCE Agency (EDA) chief executive Alexander Weis has rejected claims that the Lisbon Treaty and the agency would lead to the militarisation of the EU.
But he said EU member states were on the way to creating a common European procurement market for military equipment through the work of the agency.
"We do not militarise the European Union, we are just enhancing the military capabilities of EU member states' armed forces," Mr Weis said following a meeting of defence ministers in Brussels.
"This is for the sake of taxpayers, because co-operating means saving money. Co-operating means creating interoperability. And co-operating means sharing financial burden," he said.
"We do not have EU armed forces and we will probably in the near future not have EU armed forces."
The EU set up the EDA in July 2004 to "support the council and the member states in their effort to improve European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain European security and defence policy".
The agency works by persuading EU states to sign up to joint programmes to co-operate on armaments procurement, training, and research and technology projects in the defence field.
Campaigners for a No vote have claimed the Lisbon Treaty boosts the role of the EDA and would lead to militarisation of the EU through its provision that "member states shall improve their military capabilities".
Mr Weis said he doubted whether there was enough political will at EU level to increase military spending. But he said there was an increasing drive towards co-operation in military procurement and spending more wisely.
He said he could not comment on how the treaty would affect the agency because this would be decided by ministers. If the treaty is ratified, ministers must decide within months on the seat, operational rules and legal status of the agency.
Minister for Defence Willie O'Dea, who sits on the board of the EDA, said the No campaign was peddling the "same old tired arguments" of previous EU campaigns.
"I've fought four referendum campaigns. In every campaign, people were told that no sooner would the ink be dry on the treaty and a press gang would arrive at 6am to conscript their sons and daughters into an EU army and send them on the front line to Afghanistan or Iraq or some place like that," he said.
"The section on defence [ in the treaty] is very clear. It gives a lie to any suggestion that common defence will be imposed on us."
Asked about the commitment for EU states to increase their military capabilities, Mr O'Dea said this meant spending money more smartly rather than spending more money.
"If we don't increase our military spending, we wouldn't be honouring our programme for government because the programme for government says that we are committed to having the most up-to-date weaponry and enforced protection assets that we can have."
He also suggested that Irish spending on defence had fallen since the Nice referendum.
"Just before the Nice campaign, Ireland had 13,500 troops and spent 4.1 per cent of gross domestic product [ GDP] on defence. Last year, Ireland had 10,500 troops and spent 1.8 per cent of GDP on defence so, despite those lurid warnings that we had during the campaign on the Nice Treaty, they are just as empty as the warnings made now."
Mr O'Dea said these figures took account of the cost of Army pensions. When these were excluded, Ireland's defence spending amounted to 0.8 per cent of GDP.