The US Military Pivot and the EU

‘About Face!’

In a recent article in the Guardian¹ about the future of UKs maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft capability some interesting views were expressed by the UKs current Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, with regards to the US ‘pivot’ of its military assets from Europe to the Asia Pacific region.

Philip Hammond criticised Europe’s collective defence capability and suggested that the intervention in Libya had “cruelly exposed” some limitations of some European countries, but what are these limitations? For some examples we need look no further than the current UK government’s cost cutting led SDSR (Strategic Defence and Security Review). That review axed the £4bn Nimrod replacement, the Harrier force (the UKs fixed wing carrier capable aircraft) and will lead to drastic cuts to troop numbers leaving the UK with many of the defence gaps he’s likely referring too.

Naturally his comments are directed at European allies in NATO, particularly Germany, and to be fair I do agree with this, but we should beware of hypocrisy. That said the UK and France together account for the vast majority of European defence spending. But if the UK government and Philip Hammond believe countries like Germany should begin contributing more then, in my view, the best way to achieve this is through the EU.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere in this blog² Germany and other EU members are supportive of a European military whereas the UK stands in opposition to this. Instead we need to take a more pragmatic approach and allow those countries who see the sense in pooling military resources to do so, whilst at the same time having our own reservations respected. I do not think this risks further division between Britain and the EU, but rather speeds up progress of the EU project. Another reason I doubt this would lead to divisions is because of France, their strong Gaulist tradition of independence is similar to opinion of many in the UK and they would likely want to maintain a similar level of independence as the UK.

Philip Hammond is right that Europe needs to pull its weight, especially now we cannot guarantee that the Americans will make up our capability gaps. However the most cost effective way to get the Germans et al to do this is through the EU.

¹ The Guardian, 05/12/2012, ‘Unmanned drones likely to take over Nimrod spy duties’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/05/unmanned-drone-nimrod-spy-plane Accessed 20/12/2012

² Eurofile, 26/11/2012, ‘An argument for a European Union Security Force’, http://euro-file.blogspot.in/2012/11/an-argument-for-european-union-security.html

Demystifying The European Union For Brits

'A Break-neck Break Down of the European Union’s Government'

The EU is a complicated beast at the best of times and it’s no wonder that the ordinary people of Europe find it difficult to connect to those mysterious people known as Eurocrats. A situation not helped by the fact that the two most important people in the EU are both typically (although informally) referred to as ‘The President’. In this brief article I’d like to try and draw some parallels between the some major EU government institutions and those of the UK which myself and my fellow Brits would be more familiar with, hopefully giving people a clearer idea of how things work.

1) The Prime Minister – The EU has two roles which when combined bare similarities to post of Prime Minister, these are the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council. The Commission President is responsible for allocating portfolios to members of the Commission and can reshuffle and dismiss them as needed much like the Prime Minister can with his Cabinet. Whereas the Council President is a political position designed to act as the representative of the EU on the world stage and who also helps shape political direction.

2) The Cabinet – The British Cabinet is primarily a policy direction shaping group. They have a similar responsibility as the European Council though with perhaps a wider remit. Unlike the Council, Cabinet members can be chosen, reshuffled and dismissed as needed by the Prime Minister. The Council is made up of the heads of government of the 27 member states along with the President of the European Commission, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and the President of the European Council, currently Herman Van Rumpoy. Naturally these members of the Council cannot be removed unilaterally. However the similarity is that both institutions share the same purpose; to define “the general political directions and priorities” of the Union.

3) The House of Commons – The European Commission is the executive body of the European Union responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions and the general day-to-day running of the EU. This is also the duty of the British Parliaments House of Commons. The Commission is headed by the President of the European Commission, currently José Manuel Durão Barroso. Unlike the European Commission the House of Commons is a fully elected body whereas only the Commission President can be said to be elected in any sense with other members of the Commission able to be reshuffled and dismissed in a similar fashion to a Cabinet Minister. This is one of the primary concerns of most EU reformists and the source of the EU’s ‘democratic deficit’.

4) The House of Lords – The European Parliament is the only major elected institution in the EU. It shares its purpose with the unelected House of Lords (a source of the UK’s own democratic deficit) and both institutions are tasked with the censure of new laws being proposed. Because it doesn’t possess legislative initiative (the ability to propose laws) like most elected national parliaments it has much more in common with the House of Lords.

I hope this has cleared up some of the murky world of the EU apparatus, naturally there will be many instances where these comparisons don’t hold true or, especially in the case of the Commission and Council Presidents, where many responsibilities overlap. Please think of this a rough survival guide to get you started.

Keeping Britain In the EU

'Hear the Lion's Roar' There are many problems within the EU, a lack of transparency and the so-called democratic deficit to name two of the most serious in my humble opinion. These issues, real or imagined, give ammunition to the Europhobes, and the media that supports them, from London to Paris and beyond. It is these problems that honest British people baulk at, and rightly so. These issues do need to be discussed; the EU project cannot continue at this pace and simply hope no one will notice. Trying to create a federal Europe by stealth will only anger people and in the grand scheme will only set back the Federalist dream. The EU and its supporters need to argue, debate and make the case for it, constantly. There will be set backs but we will live to fight another day. I want the EU to succeed, I want the UK to be at the heart of it, but I don’t want that to be at the cost of our democracy and our liberty. I recognise that 20 years from now if the EU survives it will exist as a de facto Superpower, but the only way it will be allowed to survive is with the consent of its people.   Now, if I read one more thinly veiled semi-racist comment about the ‘awful Brits’ spoiling everything for the continental Federalists I think I’ll burst. Every anti-British commentator seems to think the entire population of Britain is obsessed with the War or the Empire or Roast Beef. It feels like we’re the continents favourite scapegoats and even Barroso and Van Rumpoy tried to isolate and ignore the UK (ie 62 million EU citizens) with its legitimate concerns in a shameful display at the last summit, undiplomatic to say the least. Right now there are far too many comments from self-righteous and self-proclaimed Federalists across the internet that say we should go and good riddance. As a UK Federalist I say SHUT UP, you are not helping our pro-EU cause with such stupid nationalist inspired comments. What we need is support from our continental colleagues and furthermore we, and the rest of the EU, need real discussion and real reform of the central apparatus. I don’t think we would be better off without the EU but I don’t think the EU would be better off without us either. The UK is a net contributor, spends the most on defence, has enviable foreign diplomatic and intelligence services, is the home of the financial capital of Europe (for now), hosts some of the world’s top Universities and to top that off is the motherland of the world’s second language. And I say this to the rest of the EU, like a jealous ex-wife you would miss us, even though you’d never admit it. And we, like a mid-life crisis husband who’s run off with Miss America, would soon realise that we miss your intellectual conversations and pithy but incessant scolding’s. Oh look, I got through all that without mentioning the War, the Empire or Les Rosbif, oh wait...