- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
UK blocks plans for 'EU command'
18 July 2011by Joel Shenton
Plans for a single European command and control facility have been blocked by the British government after being proposed by EU foreign policy chief Baroness Catherine Ashton.
The single site command centre proposed at a meeting of EU foreign affairs ministers could have been located in Britain, according to reports, and its 250 staff would provide facilities to coordinate military action by European countries around the world.
Stephen Booth, of thinktank Open Europe, said if approved the move could "potentially threaten Britain's primary military alliance, which remains with the United States via NATO".
Conservative Defence Spokesman in the European Parliament, Geoffrey Van Orden, said the move was "immediately" blocked by Foreign Secretary William Hague.
"The EU brings no additional military capabilities to the table, takes on no additional European share of the transatlantic defence burden. Instead, it is yet another call on the same diminishing pool of national armed forces and is a serious distraction from NATO, which should be the main focus of international military commitment for the democracies.
"While NATO struggles to persuade its member states to contribute to strategically vital missions, such as Libya, the EU continues to spend money and effort copying NATO's structures and desperately trying to find military tasks on which it can stick its badge," said Van Orden.
"It is ridiculous that co-ordination mechanisms between the EU and NATO are now required to enable more or less the same nations to talk to themselves in different locations in Brussels".
"NATO has a large, long-established and well-practised planning staff at its SHAPE headquarters in Mons and an operational command presence in the UK and other countries. Now the EU wants to duplicate this with its own operational headquarters. Although its motive is otherwise, it tries to justify this by claiming some unique amalgam of civil and military capabilities. I congratulate our ministers on refusing to cave in."
A single coastguard service covering the entire continent was also set to be announced and blocked by government
Shipping minister Mike Penning said: "A European coastguard is not a concept we support."
HAVE YOUR SAY
18 July 2011
to be suggested by labour, shows again perhaps a sell out,
if they want a single european militery, then may i suggest great britain pulls out and stays with NATO and the euro can go it with the other 26 nations, but without britain.
just a thought .
criss of herts - london
19 July 2011
2 albeit partially 'good news' defence stories in one week:
"Defence cash deal to plug 'funding gap'", 18_07-2011:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d819bf42-b15a-11e0-9444-00144feab49a.html
"... The extra money will secure several individual equipment programmes, including extra Chinook helicopters, three new intelligence and surveillance aircraft and upgraded Warrior armoured vehicles...
"But it falls short of the 2 per cent real terms increase in the overall defence budget army chiefs and defence experts argued would be needed to fund the government's vision of the armed forces in 2020..."
But additional strengthening of NATO coupled with increased UK defence funding still needed...
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, Canada
19 July 2011
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, Canada
I agree, the main problem I feel is that real term increases are misleading due to having to work out how they relate to inflation and economic increases to get a proper comparisson of spending.
If the government accnounced changes as a percentage of GDP it would provide a much clearer image I think.
That said I'm not sure whether this article is good news or not.. We do need to work with other nations. We just need to decide if thats as a partner to an American led venture. OR as a leader in an EU led venture.
Lets not forget that the EU's economy and power is up among America's, India's and China's. Meaning a properly organised EU would have the potential to develop into a super power.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom
19 July 2011
"Lets not forget that the EU's economy and power is up among America's, India's and China's. Meaning a properly organised EU would have the potential to develop into a super power.
"
Hopefully a properly organized EU would also increase military spending so the US can remove its bases and not leave a vacuum. If the Europeans want their own central military command, I say go for it. There would be no need for NATO and we could hopefully go back to being isolationists again. It seems to me that people my age are more interested in keeping to ourselves than policing the world. I don't see a combined EU force working out though considering that all those nations in NATO that do not participate or only send a token force would make up this alliance, and therefore, Britain and maybe France would be the only nations protecting the whole continent. I can definitely see why Britain is not eager to allow that to happen.
Mark - VA, Qatar
19 July 2011
Mark - VA, Qatar
Indeed, the problem does lie with getting nations other than France to commit.
I'm actually of the belief that France, Germany and the UK would be enough. Germany has a large enough army. France has a good balance and that would allow the UK to shift to a maritime focused strategy.
Each nation would still retain the ability for smaller independent actions of course however the focus would allow the three to work together very well on a strategic scale.
Failing that the best bet is either through the commonwealth (Britain missed such a HUGE trick with the commonwealth)
OR we invest some more in defence (cutting the NHS by 1% GDP would allow you to raise defence by 1% GDP or a 50% increase in pure cash terms)... We then put that into a maritime strategy.
Due to our skills and ability in that area coupled with how well it fits into the UKs trading, political and geographical requirements it would allow us to punch above our weight. We stay in NATO and really do become a partner America can actually rely on... I'm sure America would be more than releaved to have another nation able to deploy 1-2 proper CBG's as well as an ARG.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom
20 July 2011
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom -
I agree that Britain, France, and Germany would be enough; the only problem is does Germany have the will. Germany, like many NATO allies who have sent a force to Afghanistan, are so restricted by their rules of engagement, that they leave the fighting to the rest of us. NATO - No Action, Talk Only.
I'm willing to bet that just like America, the taxpayers of Britain, France, and Germany would soon grow tired of spilling their blood and emptying their pockets while other EU nations get a free ride.
Last I read, Germany supported your role in Libya, but weren't lifting a finger to help. That's why I see any future EU venture being led by Britian and France without much support from other EU nations.
I agree with you Anthony, I think we would be relieved somewhat when/if you get your 2 carriers. I just hope the MoD doesn't screw it up by only fitting one carrier with EMALS. If they don't add the PoW with a catapult, what do they plan on launching off of it, helicopters?
Mark - VA, Qatar
20 July 2011
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom
"I'm actually of the belief that France, Germany and the UK would be enough. Germany has a large enough army. France has a good balance and that would allow the UK to shift to a maritime focused strategy"
The German Army is now smaller than ours, only 89,500 men, thats why there are nearly a 1000 (cheap) surplus Leopard 2's flooding the market, which is another reason why CR-2 hasn't done as well recently.
The German Army is a shadow of its former self (still very good), but as mark mentioned, their ROE are really strict.
Rob - Telford
21 July 2011
I think we may have taken our eyes off the ball a bit here. If Europe is to be responsible for its own defence, it needs to provide 2 fundamental ingredients: 1. a fully-funded defence force 2. an efficient and effective command & control structure.
In light of the recent turmoil surrounding the EU economy, I have no faith in the EU's ability to provide either. All sovereign nations within EU are hurting financially and with the threat of one of the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece & Spain) economies going bankrupt, it will be left to the slight less worse off nations to fund it. In other words, UK, France & Germany. I do not see UK willing or able to provide their share of the necessary funding and therefore it will not happen as the other 2 could not do it alone. Germany will also have to change its Constitution to allow its forces to operate in an offensive capacity on foreign soil.
AW Employee - Yeovil