Merkel 'expects Cameron to back EU army' in exchange for renegotiation
Thread Starter
Merkel 'expects Cameron to back EU army' in exchange for renegotiation
Didn't see this one coming in the current UK-EU "negotiations" 
Perhaps it's to back up the threats that have been made against a number of East European countries to ensure they take their allocated migrant quota
Merkel 'expects Cameron to back EU army' in exchange for renegotiation - Telegraph
Angela Merkel will expect David Cameron to drop his opposition to an EU army in exchange for supporting Britain’s renegotiation, the Telegraph has been told. The German chancellor will ask Britain to stand aside as she promotes an ambitious blueprint to integrate continental Europe’s armed forces. It comes as Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, said Britain will get a deal if it gives the green light to a raft of powerful new EU institutions.
A Berlin source said agreeing not to “block” Mrs Merkel's defence plans is a “favour” that she would seek from Mr Cameron as he looks for her support in the renegotiation. “If you want favours, you have to give favours,” the source said. "If Cameron wants a 'flexible Europe', he must let other members integrate further. Yes - opt out, opt out, opt out - and then shut up.”
The creation of an EU army could marginalise Britain within Nato, and result in the United States downgrading the special relationship with Britain in favour of Paris and Berlin, experts warn. While Mr Cameron backs tighter Eurozone integration, he faces a dilemma over whether the risk of a diminished strategic position is a price worth paying in his renegotiation.
The Telegraph has seen an unpublished position paper drawn up by Mrs Merkel’s party, the CDU, that sets out a detailed 10-point plan for military co-operation in Europe. It is understood to closely reflect her thinking, and calls for a permanent EU military HQ, combined weapons procurement and a shared military doctrine. The paper says it is “urgent” to integrate armed forces “in the face of multifaceted crises”. It calls for “a permanent structured and coordinated cooperation of national armed forces in the medium term.
“In the long run, this process should according to the present German coalition agreement lead also to a European Army subject to Parliamentarian control.” It adds: “In the framework of NATO, a uniform European pillar will be more valuable and efficient for the USA than with the present rag-rug characterised by a lack of joint European planning, procurement, and interoperability.” A similar paper has been circulated by Elmar Brok, a key Merkel ally, within the EPP party group in the European Parliament. It describes the lack of an EU military headquarters as "absurd".
Frances Burwell, vice president of the US-based Atlantic Council think tank, said the United States would welcome integration to make wasteful European defence spending more efficient. However, the special relationship could be “downgraded” if Britain refused to join, in favour of the “very active” French military. “In combination with the discussion about whether Britain will leave the EU, it would contribute to a downgrading,” she said. "If you did something like that, the natural leaders would be France and Germany and we’d have to spend a lot of time with them.” “There used to be no doubt about who we would call first - but things are now more complicated.”
Mrs Merkel is backing a push by Mr Juncker to create an EU army. Earlier this year his defence adviser, Michel Barnier, issued a paper through the EU’s in-house think tank calling for permanent military integration using legal mechanisms known as PESCO created by the Lisbon Treaty of 2009. Under the treaty, Britain could not be forced to join a joint army, but it cannot veto its creation.
The paper proposes an Operational Headquarters, a European Medical Command and a Joint Helicopter Wing as first steps under a project that would save billions in duplication between countries. Since 2007 the EU has had two rotating emergency battlegroups of 1,500 men, but they have never seen combat - something Mr Barnier dubs a “failure” that “must be addressed”. A combined military is necessary “in order to become a vector of the EU as a global actor,” and to “significantly strengthen the European pillar within NATO”, the paper says.
It notes: “UK does not share an interest in a closely integrated European defence, whereas Germany and France, together with the Benelux countries, Italy, Spain and more recently Poland are more open to the idea.” It adds: “Clearly, security in Europe is today high in demand and low in supply, begging the question: “If not now, when?”
In a major address on Wednesday, Mr Juncker said Britain’s renegotiation will “recognise the reality” it has special opt outs on policy. But crucially, he added: “To be fair to the other member states, the UK's choices must not prevent them from further integration where they see fit.” Mr Juncker proposed powerful EU institutions that Britain would not be obliged to join, including a Eurozone treasury, a border and coast guard, a ‘green card’ system of legal immigration and a new raft of laws regulating pay and conditions.
A common EU army has been a goal of European integrationists for sixty years, but Britain has long been a major obstacle. Mr Cameron pledged to oppose “notions like an EU army” in the 2015 Conservative manifesto, and has repeatedly attacked the idea as Prime Minister.
Geoffrey Van Orden, a Conservative MEP and retired British Army brigadier, said allowing a European army is “too high a price to pay” for Britain’s renegotiation. It could form a powerful caucus within Nato, and the United States would conclude “we no longer had any influence on the continent” and downgrade its relationship. It could also result in Britain being shut out the lucrative defence equipment market in Europe, he said. “I have always suspected that we were willing to make concessions in relation to foreign policy in exchange for French and German support in other areas,” he said. “I don’t accept we should have to pay this price. We should not trade away something so strategically important for some minor concessions in terms of reform.”
Jan Techau, director of Carnegie Europe, a policy think tank, said defence integration “will probably come up” during the renegotiation talks with Germany. However, securing Mr Cameron’s backing for political integration of the Eurozone is a far higher priority for Mrs Merkel, he said. “It is too important for Britain not to mention it. But my feeling is it is not going to be one of the crucial issues,” he said.
A Government spokesman said: "The British public are clear that they are not happy with the status quo, and the PM is determined to address those concerns." A source added: "This is just yet more of the noise and speculation we said there would be during the negotiations."
Perhaps it's to back up the threats that have been made against a number of East European countries to ensure they take their allocated migrant quota
Merkel 'expects Cameron to back EU army' in exchange for renegotiation - Telegraph
Angela Merkel will expect David Cameron to drop his opposition to an EU army in exchange for supporting Britain’s renegotiation, the Telegraph has been told. The German chancellor will ask Britain to stand aside as she promotes an ambitious blueprint to integrate continental Europe’s armed forces. It comes as Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, said Britain will get a deal if it gives the green light to a raft of powerful new EU institutions.
A Berlin source said agreeing not to “block” Mrs Merkel's defence plans is a “favour” that she would seek from Mr Cameron as he looks for her support in the renegotiation. “If you want favours, you have to give favours,” the source said. "If Cameron wants a 'flexible Europe', he must let other members integrate further. Yes - opt out, opt out, opt out - and then shut up.”
The creation of an EU army could marginalise Britain within Nato, and result in the United States downgrading the special relationship with Britain in favour of Paris and Berlin, experts warn. While Mr Cameron backs tighter Eurozone integration, he faces a dilemma over whether the risk of a diminished strategic position is a price worth paying in his renegotiation.
The Telegraph has seen an unpublished position paper drawn up by Mrs Merkel’s party, the CDU, that sets out a detailed 10-point plan for military co-operation in Europe. It is understood to closely reflect her thinking, and calls for a permanent EU military HQ, combined weapons procurement and a shared military doctrine. The paper says it is “urgent” to integrate armed forces “in the face of multifaceted crises”. It calls for “a permanent structured and coordinated cooperation of national armed forces in the medium term.
“In the long run, this process should according to the present German coalition agreement lead also to a European Army subject to Parliamentarian control.” It adds: “In the framework of NATO, a uniform European pillar will be more valuable and efficient for the USA than with the present rag-rug characterised by a lack of joint European planning, procurement, and interoperability.” A similar paper has been circulated by Elmar Brok, a key Merkel ally, within the EPP party group in the European Parliament. It describes the lack of an EU military headquarters as "absurd".
Frances Burwell, vice president of the US-based Atlantic Council think tank, said the United States would welcome integration to make wasteful European defence spending more efficient. However, the special relationship could be “downgraded” if Britain refused to join, in favour of the “very active” French military. “In combination with the discussion about whether Britain will leave the EU, it would contribute to a downgrading,” she said. "If you did something like that, the natural leaders would be France and Germany and we’d have to spend a lot of time with them.” “There used to be no doubt about who we would call first - but things are now more complicated.”
Mrs Merkel is backing a push by Mr Juncker to create an EU army. Earlier this year his defence adviser, Michel Barnier, issued a paper through the EU’s in-house think tank calling for permanent military integration using legal mechanisms known as PESCO created by the Lisbon Treaty of 2009. Under the treaty, Britain could not be forced to join a joint army, but it cannot veto its creation.
The paper proposes an Operational Headquarters, a European Medical Command and a Joint Helicopter Wing as first steps under a project that would save billions in duplication between countries. Since 2007 the EU has had two rotating emergency battlegroups of 1,500 men, but they have never seen combat - something Mr Barnier dubs a “failure” that “must be addressed”. A combined military is necessary “in order to become a vector of the EU as a global actor,” and to “significantly strengthen the European pillar within NATO”, the paper says.
It notes: “UK does not share an interest in a closely integrated European defence, whereas Germany and France, together with the Benelux countries, Italy, Spain and more recently Poland are more open to the idea.” It adds: “Clearly, security in Europe is today high in demand and low in supply, begging the question: “If not now, when?”
In a major address on Wednesday, Mr Juncker said Britain’s renegotiation will “recognise the reality” it has special opt outs on policy. But crucially, he added: “To be fair to the other member states, the UK's choices must not prevent them from further integration where they see fit.” Mr Juncker proposed powerful EU institutions that Britain would not be obliged to join, including a Eurozone treasury, a border and coast guard, a ‘green card’ system of legal immigration and a new raft of laws regulating pay and conditions.
A common EU army has been a goal of European integrationists for sixty years, but Britain has long been a major obstacle. Mr Cameron pledged to oppose “notions like an EU army” in the 2015 Conservative manifesto, and has repeatedly attacked the idea as Prime Minister.
Geoffrey Van Orden, a Conservative MEP and retired British Army brigadier, said allowing a European army is “too high a price to pay” for Britain’s renegotiation. It could form a powerful caucus within Nato, and the United States would conclude “we no longer had any influence on the continent” and downgrade its relationship. It could also result in Britain being shut out the lucrative defence equipment market in Europe, he said. “I have always suspected that we were willing to make concessions in relation to foreign policy in exchange for French and German support in other areas,” he said. “I don’t accept we should have to pay this price. We should not trade away something so strategically important for some minor concessions in terms of reform.”
Jan Techau, director of Carnegie Europe, a policy think tank, said defence integration “will probably come up” during the renegotiation talks with Germany. However, securing Mr Cameron’s backing for political integration of the Eurozone is a far higher priority for Mrs Merkel, he said. “It is too important for Britain not to mention it. But my feeling is it is not going to be one of the crucial issues,” he said.
A Government spokesman said: "The British public are clear that they are not happy with the status quo, and the PM is determined to address those concerns." A source added: "This is just yet more of the noise and speculation we said there would be during the negotiations."
that.
This has me lost......
Closer integration so that means basically do sod all outside of Europe and only when Putin comes knocking.
Would listen to Germany on defence if they actually did something. I know they are scared if they did that all the old genes would kick in.. But this is just another economic ploy like the euro and just as big a joke
Closer integration so that means basically do sod all outside of Europe and only when Putin comes knocking.
Would listen to Germany on defence if they actually did something. I know they are scared if they did that all the old genes would kick in.. But this is just another economic ploy like the euro and just as big a joke
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F$%k me, they can't even make a basic F$%king EU work, how about fixing the basic issues now. And once they do that, and people get some faith in the institution then think about it.
The EU now contains sufficient seeds of its own destruction to ensure solutions to the problems posed by an EU Army, the Euro, and the Schengen Agreement. We wisely stayed outside the last two, we should just as wisely reject the first. As to the EU, the strains within it of countries that share nothing in common, other that they share a border (enforced or not) or a Continent, means that we should wisely get out of that as well.
The EU is never going to resume the form of simply being the Trading Block that we voted for by Referendum. The irony is that it turned from that towards political union ostensibly in order to ensure Peace. The outbreak of civil disturbance in many of its cities recently gives the lie to that. The Peace that it has enjoyed since the end of WWII was no thanks to the EU, despite it receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for that supposed achievement, but by NATO. That is the EU Army that we have always been stalwart supporters of, and should continue to do so.
The EU is never going to resume the form of simply being the Trading Block that we voted for by Referendum. The irony is that it turned from that towards political union ostensibly in order to ensure Peace. The outbreak of civil disturbance in many of its cities recently gives the lie to that. The Peace that it has enjoyed since the end of WWII was no thanks to the EU, despite it receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for that supposed achievement, but by NATO. That is the EU Army that we have always been stalwart supporters of, and should continue to do so.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,903
Received 2,834 Likes
on
1,210 Posts
Just turn round and say enough is enough, I should think if we did leave the EU it would seriously undermine its stability... Joint force huh, one thought that was what NATO was supposed to be, and that lacks bite.
Thread Starter
The EU has already threatened the use of 'force' to push through migrant quotas.
Dodgy Google translation of a Polish news article reporting this:
https://translate.google.com/transla...l%7Cen&ie=UTF8
Dodgy Google translation of a Polish news article reporting this:
https://translate.google.com/transla...l%7Cen&ie=UTF8
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,903
Received 2,834 Likes
on
1,210 Posts
Nothing wrong with open borders gladrag as long as those on the periphery are robust.
Everything wrong with open borders in my opinion, for the very reason that you state Nutloose. The "periphery" are often the newly joined countries with weak economies that can only do "robust" with the sort of heavy handed ineptitude witnessed in Hungary and elsewhere.
The only people that can ensure a nation's security are the people of that nation, or those nations that are allied to it by treaty. That means, in my view, closed borders and NATO.
The only people that can ensure a nation's security are the people of that nation, or those nations that are allied to it by treaty. That means, in my view, closed borders and NATO.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
With the EU's past record to go on, the response to an aggressor would be..."EU Defence Ministers are due to meet next month to outline a response, which will be put to the National Leaders within thirty days". Don't touch it with a bargepole, Dave.
As the Oath of Allegiance is to Her Majesty the Queen, her Heirs and Successors and those officers placed over me/us. This one has the makings of a bad joke and Cameron needs to be told in no uncertain terms to ferk off. Read Cauldron by Larry Bond, make interesting reading.
I suspect if you want a revolt in the forces and people put in their PVRs or elect not to re-engage then this is a non starter.
Politicians have to learn their place even if it requires a stout hempen rope for Treason.
I suspect if you want a revolt in the forces and people put in their PVRs or elect not to re-engage then this is a non starter.
Politicians have to learn their place even if it requires a stout hempen rope for Treason.
Last edited by air pig; 13th Sep 2015 at 16:43.
Germany is an irrelevance in NATO mainly due to its reluctance to deploy their military even non combatants. NATOs last mission in Afghanistan was supported by all except Germany. This is a ploy to give Germany greater power where they currently have none. Even the French despite all the jokes have been a great supporter of NATO and other Western forces for many years. Cameron should tell her to shove the plan. Germany would neuter any such force.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nuts, hi, I refer you to post #8 Nothing wrong with open borders I have actually worked outside the UK as a civilian and the opportunities it brings are bountiful [but you need the right mindset to get by, no little englanders refusing to learn, say French despite living there] I do wonder if this migration bolloux will be the end of Western European Civilisation?
Germany is an irrelevance in NATO mainly due to its reluctance to deploy their military even non combatants. NATOs last mission in Afghanistan was supported by all except Germany.
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-remains...stan/a-4910800
and also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German...in_Afghanistan
Germany is one of the main contributors of troops to coalition operations in Afghanistan.
EU Sovereignty
You can't have a true army unless you also have an EU sovereign state. Otherwise it's just another treaty organisation. I think both the UK and US will understand that, and will simply let them get on with it and watch it become irrelevant. Afterall, I doubt any existing NATO members will quit.
Now if all the EU countries did unify politically that would be more significant, but I can't see that happening any time soon...
Now if all the EU countries did unify politically that would be more significant, but I can't see that happening any time soon...
20 years ago, with a lot more military capability extant, there was a load of talk about the EuroCorps and the Independent European Defense Identity. I was skeptical then, it's a farce to be even talking about it now.
The WEU did put together a maritime flotilla that actually some things done. Two decades ago. Scaling up from that has not quite panned out.
An EU Army, as noted above, first needs a unifying political organization ... which the EU is not.
As to Schengen, I was appalled at what the Europeans were doing when it went down. In some very long discussions with my Spanish, French, and Italian colleagues, I walked the dog on border security and capability, comparing their challenge with the challenges we have on our southern border. Quite frankly, the European problem is a lot more complicated than ours is. Once the internal lines dropped, Schengen as an agreement was one of the surest ways to keep Turkey out of the EU ... so maybe that is why some folks supported it, not sure.
If you don't control your own borders, and if you don't have your own currency, how can you be a sovereign nation?
The WEU did put together a maritime flotilla that actually some things done. Two decades ago. Scaling up from that has not quite panned out.
An EU Army, as noted above, first needs a unifying political organization ... which the EU is not.
As to Schengen, I was appalled at what the Europeans were doing when it went down. In some very long discussions with my Spanish, French, and Italian colleagues, I walked the dog on border security and capability, comparing their challenge with the challenges we have on our southern border. Quite frankly, the European problem is a lot more complicated than ours is. Once the internal lines dropped, Schengen as an agreement was one of the surest ways to keep Turkey out of the EU ... so maybe that is why some folks supported it, not sure.
If you don't control your own borders, and if you don't have your own currency, how can you be a sovereign nation?
Unless a country/ continent is land-locked, if it wants military clout it needs an army and a navy and, since about 1914, an air force.
The idea of an army without air/aviation is farcical.
The idea of an army without air/aviation is farcical.
The idea of an army without air/aviation is farcical.
Analysis: Is the time right for a European Air Force? - IHS Jane's 360