There has, since 1948 and the Western European Union, been an obligation for Britain to defend Western Europe beyond that implied by membership of NATO. Has the membership of the EU increased Britain's obligations? What has changed?
A great deal has changed, the EU can now commit member states to wars and the EU controls the UK and France's seats at the UN and also controls UK foreign policy. The agreements that make the UK part of the EU's defences are explained below using direct quotes from the Treaties as amended by Lisbon. The UK has worked to hinder this EU control of defence but after Qualified Majority Voting and the removal of the veto in November 2014 the UK will be unable to stop it. Not only will this completely alter the UK's defence strategy but allies such as the USA will use the Lisbon Treaty as a guide to future defence relations with the UK.
"EDA’s statute enables decisions to be taken by majority voting, and where any single state can threaten a veto, a subset of member states can act unilaterally as a bloc in the name of the whole of the EU (so called “structure cooperation”)."
The UK Government maintain that they still have sovereignty over defence because of the possibility of a veto on the EU ATHENA funding mechanism. However, being able to veto funds only gives a state the power to stop actions, it does not give it the power to act independently - see below. In practice the UK has used its ATHENA veto to slow down the development of the EU Common Security and Defence Policy but an IN/REMAIN vote in the coming referendum will make this position hard to maintain.
Other European States see Lisbon as the beginning of Europe as an independent security and foreign policy power (see below) but the British are hiding this aspect of the EU. The Media and politicians scarcely mention that the UK is upgrading Trident as an EU, not a UK, deterrent.
The Agreements
The principle change is the solidarity clauses implemented by the Lisbon Treaty, especially Article 24(3), amended Treaty on European Union:
"3. The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area."
Couple this clause with Article 26(1):
"1. The European Council shall identify the Union’s strategic interests, determine the objectives of and define general guidelines for the common foreign and security policy, including for matters with defence implications. It shall adopt the necessary decisions."
and we end up with a cast iron committment to supply UK military forces for EU missions.
What about UK defence? Can we act alone?
"3.. Whenever there is any plan to adopt a national position or take national action pursuant to a decision as referred to in paragraph 1, information shall be provided by the Member State concerned in time to allow, if necessary, for prior consultations within the Council. The obligation to provide prior information shall not apply to measures which are merely a national transposition of Council decisions." (ie: all actions must be referred to the Council before they are taken but Paragraph 1 says that the Council is sovereign in all matters of defence that it considers).
In Article 42 it describes how the EU is committed to the ongoing task of forming its own military force, the European Union Battle Group.
This means that the EU can send in its battle group(s), they get into trouble and all the other members of the EU are then committed to reinforce the attack. In theory there are over 13 Battle Group Battalions with over 60,000 troops on call. To date Britain has blocked funding for this enterprise which means that although there are 60,000+ troops available in member states they do not have the common equipment and command required for major actions. This would change after an IN vote in a UK referendum.
What about Britain and France's membership of the UN Security Council? According to Article 34:
"Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and keep the other Member States and the High Representative fully informed. Member States which are members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, defend the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.
When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the High Representative be invited to present the Union’s position."
The British Government sees these agreements as a "Lisbon Dividend" that allows it to cut defence spending: if the UK has little responsibility for foreign and defence policy then maintaining forces to implement and defend UK policy is absurd. Why does the British media and Establishment suppress the fact that we are fully signed up to the European Union ?
The other implication of the Lisbon Treaty is that NATO will make a treaty with the EU if the "Remain" vote wins in the coming referendum. Given the reality of the Lisbon Treaty it makes no sense for the EU to have regions with separate deals with NATO. This process is already well under way:
The NATO-EU Declaration on European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), agreed on 16 December 2002, reaffirmed the EU assured access to NATO’s planning capabilities for its own military operations.
On the 17 March 2003, the so-called “Berlin Plus” arrangements provided the basis for NATO-EU cooperation in crisis management in the context of EU-led operations that make use of NATO's collective assets and capabilities
A great deal has changed, the EU can now commit member states to wars and the EU controls the UK and France's seats at the UN and also controls UK foreign policy. The agreements that make the UK part of the EU's defences are explained below using direct quotes from the Treaties as amended by Lisbon. The UK has worked to hinder this EU control of defence but after Qualified Majority Voting and the removal of the veto in November 2014 the UK will be unable to stop it. Not only will this completely alter the UK's defence strategy but allies such as the USA will use the Lisbon Treaty as a guide to future defence relations with the UK.
The British media spend hours agitating for British forces to intervene abroad but they seem oblivious to the fact that these forces are now at the disposal of the EU (Lisbon was fully implemented on 1/11/14 with the removal of the veto). Do the journalists really not understand that this has happened or are they keeping the British public in the dark? The only article in the press that has spotted the change in sovereignty is The EU is taking over defence policy by stealth :
"EDA’s statute enables decisions to be taken by majority voting, and where any single state can threaten a veto, a subset of member states can act unilaterally as a bloc in the name of the whole of the EU (so called “structure cooperation”)."
The UK Government maintain that they still have sovereignty over defence because of the possibility of a veto on the EU ATHENA funding mechanism. However, being able to veto funds only gives a state the power to stop actions, it does not give it the power to act independently - see below. In practice the UK has used its ATHENA veto to slow down the development of the EU Common Security and Defence Policy but an IN/REMAIN vote in the coming referendum will make this position hard to maintain.
Other European States see Lisbon as the beginning of Europe as an independent security and foreign policy power (see below) but the British are hiding this aspect of the EU. The Media and politicians scarcely mention that the UK is upgrading Trident as an EU, not a UK, deterrent.
The Agreements
The principle change is the solidarity clauses implemented by the Lisbon Treaty, especially Article 24(3), amended Treaty on European Union:
"3. The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area."
Couple this clause with Article 26(1):
"1. The European Council shall identify the Union’s strategic interests, determine the objectives of and define general guidelines for the common foreign and security policy, including for matters with defence implications. It shall adopt the necessary decisions."
and we end up with a cast iron committment to supply UK military forces for EU missions.
What about UK defence? Can we act alone?
"3.. Whenever there is any plan to adopt a national position or take national action pursuant to a decision as referred to in paragraph 1, information shall be provided by the Member State concerned in time to allow, if necessary, for prior consultations within the Council. The obligation to provide prior information shall not apply to measures which are merely a national transposition of Council decisions." (ie: all actions must be referred to the Council before they are taken but Paragraph 1 says that the Council is sovereign in all matters of defence that it considers).
In Article 42 it describes how the EU is committed to the ongoing task of forming its own military force, the European Union Battle Group.
 |
| EU Battle Group |
What about Britain and France's membership of the UN Security Council? According to Article 34:
"Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and keep the other Member States and the High Representative fully informed. Member States which are members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, defend the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.
When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the High Representative be invited to present the Union’s position."
The British Government sees these agreements as a "Lisbon Dividend" that allows it to cut defence spending: if the UK has little responsibility for foreign and defence policy then maintaining forces to implement and defend UK policy is absurd. Why does the British media and Establishment suppress the fact that we are fully signed up to the European Union ?
The other implication of the Lisbon Treaty is that NATO will make a treaty with the EU if the "Remain" vote wins in the coming referendum. Given the reality of the Lisbon Treaty it makes no sense for the EU to have regions with separate deals with NATO. This process is already well under way:
The NATO-EU Declaration on European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), agreed on 16 December 2002, reaffirmed the EU assured access to NATO’s planning capabilities for its own military operations.
On the 17 March 2003, the so-called “Berlin Plus” arrangements provided the basis for NATO-EU cooperation in crisis management in the context of EU-led operations that make use of NATO's collective assets and capabilities
A NATO Permanent Liaison Team has been operating at the EU Military
Staff since November 2005 and an EU Cell was set up at SHAPE (NATO’s
strategic command for operations in Mons, Belgium) in March 2006. (See NATO-EU: A Strategic Partnership)
The UK is the country that has done its utmost to undermine the Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Union in the past but since majority voting was introduced in 2014 and after a "REMAIN" vote in the coming referendum the UK will have little option but to be fully committed like Germany. The UK is also the country with the most military backbone in the EU, if NATO loses the UK, when it merges with the EU, and gains the EU it will lose much more than it gets.
Since November 2014 the UK has got into the swing of supporting the EU militarily:
Mission to Somalia
Ukraine Agreement
The German view of EU Defence
"EU member states share a common vision of the EU as a security provider. This is the main driver behind their endeavour to enhance CSDP. The basis of this vision is the experience of several member states that they cannot meet their security interests on their own." European Geo-Strategy"
"Germany should therefore cooperate especially in the establishment of permanent structured cooperation and help to shape it with France, Poland, Spain and, at some point, Italy"A Compass for the CSDP
The UK is the country that has done its utmost to undermine the Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Union in the past but since majority voting was introduced in 2014 and after a "REMAIN" vote in the coming referendum the UK will have little option but to be fully committed like Germany. The UK is also the country with the most military backbone in the EU, if NATO loses the UK, when it merges with the EU, and gains the EU it will lose much more than it gets.
Since November 2014 the UK has got into the swing of supporting the EU militarily:
Mission to Somalia
Ukraine Agreement
The German view of EU Defence
"EU member states share a common vision of the EU as a security provider. This is the main driver behind their endeavour to enhance CSDP. The basis of this vision is the experience of several member states that they cannot meet their security interests on their own." European Geo-Strategy"
"Germany should therefore cooperate especially in the establishment of permanent structured cooperation and help to shape it with France, Poland, Spain and, at some point, Italy"
The Spanish view
"I am fully aware that ‘the European project’ has different meanings in different corners of geographical and political Europe. But in Spain, it mostly keeps the original meaning of an ever-closer union...
Spain supports a badly needed permanent planning and conduct capability for both civilian and military missions. On the key issue of military capabilities, the CSDP can be instrumental in bringing about a more efficient European defence industry. CSDP’s development will pave the way for more cooperative capabilities that will require a more efficient industrial base." Enrique Mora, Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The French View
“Unless there is a strong reawakening of political determination to make Europe a global power, to prevent it from becoming powerless, and dependent, all of the arrangements for the Europe of Defense will be nothing more than incomplete or lifeless words on paper”French defense Minister, Hubert Vedrine
The view of the USA
"The Strategic Concept clearly states that an active and effective European Union contributes to the overall security of the Euro-Atlantic area. Therefore the EU is a unique and essential partner for NATO." NATO-EU a strategic partnership.
"We welcome an outward-looking European Union with Britain in it. We benefit when the EU is unified, speaking with a single voice, and focused on our shared interests around the world and in Europe," Philip Gordon said during a visit to London, adding: "We want to see a strong British voice in that European Union. That is in the American interest." Guardian.
In effect the USA no longer regards the UK to be a sovereign nation and is urging it to play a full role in the EU. The USA has been working towards a politically united EU that is a member of NATO for the past 50 years. (See US Role in creating EU).
When you vote in the referendum there will be no turning back, please remember that your children and your children's children will be deprived of independence if we Remain.
Use http://tinyurl.com/l82zc3m to link to this article.
POLITICAL THOUGHTS click here to see the whole POLITICAL THOUGHTS magazine!
See Consolidated Texts of the EU Treaties as Amended by Lisbon.
First published 20/2/2015
Comments