Will the UK leave NATO eventually?
 

Any real possibility of this occurring, within say 2-5 years? I was only thinking about the fallout from the so called BREXIT. If EU nations were difficult, or took from our view difficult positions against the UK in matters of new trade tariffs and future relationships.......my question is do you think a future UK leader would ever threaten to withdraw us from NATO?
Withdraw us out of spite against our former EU colleagues? Or use our position to remain within NATO as a bargaining chip?


* Fully concede we may shortly not even have a UK in its political sense for much longer anyway.


My own opinion for what its worth is yes, we may eventually be led to depart NATO if things don't go our way with Europe in the future..

You think the world works in a very odd way hangar...

I don't understand the basics of the question. Whatever has NATO got to do with the politics of the EU?

Nothing, but hey there is nowt like a bit of scaremongering :)

One word answer: "NO". Two word answer "ABSOLUTELY NOT". The UK was in NATO long before the EEC (and certainly long before the EU) was formed.

No - any future UK leader that wanted to withdraw us from NATO wouldn't be the UK leader for very long. Have we not just demonstrated that we are sick to the teeth of leaders that want to follow their own agenda and not listen?

The French of course left the military structure of NATO. I don't recall that we were too upset about that.

YS

Would it be a better question to ask if the EU will leave NATO eventually?

YS and the Greeks and the Turks won't agree to letting them back in. Now there is your connection EU-NATO.

What will influence UK's membership is the behaviour and attitude of European leaders within NATO fora -such as the Warsaw Summit at the end of next week. I expect there will be cold shoulders offered by some leaders, and will we see some Eurocentric capability groups being formed.

It won't force us to leave, but our relationship will become much more transactional.

The real world security of Europe has depended on NATO since its formation. Nothing that has happened since has changed that. Nothing that has happened since has changed the nature of NATO, where some countries have been more reliable partners than others. What happens in NATO from now on will no doubt shadow the shifting alliances of European states, whether within or without the EU. More likely that those who have turned their backs before on NATO will do so again. That won't be the UK.

Only if Corbyn gets in..................

That was in the original draft of Alice but they decided it was just too silly . . . ;)

Better question , will the US leave NATO if Trump somehow becomes the next president ?
The EU is not safe from implosion if things stay the way they are, if the likes of Junker, Schultz and Verhofstad get their way and even more power gets centralized in Brussels it is not inconceivable that the leave-EU parties in France, the Netherlands and other EU nations win the next national elections and the EU lose more member states that way.

Marie le Pen already stated that Europe will be a main theme in next years elections, and the anti Europe sentiments in France are bigger than they ever where in the UK.

Or a better question would be are there rabbits on pluto

nope, I guess over 90% citizens of UK would be against it and it will stay like that for some time

If the UK Military continues to shrink...at what point does the question become moot?

When they no longer have the nu-cular capability to destroy the whole world?

CG

Edit: not a criticism btw

Edit the second: SAS, I thought you wrote 'US, not 'UK'! Disregard. Oh, you did!

Does it have to be that drastic?

I recall reading that the Canadians, The US and another nation with ASW abilities had to hunt for a suspected sub operating off your shores recently.

Shrinkage...not just a bedroom issue.

As far as I am aware, only two countries pay their rightful amount on defence, as requested by NATO. One is the US, naturally, and the other is that little offshore island, the UK. Don't go writing us off just yet.

Herod, my umderstanding was that we spend it, not pay it. Huge difference, depending on which country we / they spend it in.

Herod, but does the USA include military pensions in the total?

An unfortunate choice of words on my part. Of course, it is the percentage of GDP spent on defence. As far as pensions are included, yes, it's a false figure. My point still stands. We are one of only two nations spending enough on our defences. Although I agree that we should be spending more.

A few years ago, while Sarkozy was leading in France, the French reintegrated into the military command structure. All in all a good thing.

I am not sure how it would be in the strategic interest of the UK to not remain in NATO. Once one has reduced one's overall military force structure, there is more incentive to depend on coalition efforts for a variety of military endeavors.

Put another way: what benefit(s) would it accrue to the UK to quit NATO? Since my PoV is from the western shores of the pond, I might be missing something obvious to someone who sees it from the other shore.

Herod, That is of course, the worst kind of old fashioned defence thinking.


We should be trying to focus on getting more defence. Buying even more of the useless, but very expensive kit from our friends, is not helping the war effort.

I didn't say we should be spending more on useless, expensive kit. I just said we should be spending more. I would hope that spending it in the most cost-effective way would be a given (in my world, but not necessarily in the world of the "powers")

I thought we were one of five who met the 2% GDP requirement, US, UK, Greece, Poland and Estonia.

To answer the comment I seriously doubt we would leave NATO.

Anyway, they have no maritime patrol aircraft, no nuclear bombers, no aircraft carriers ... and virtually no longer any overseas commitment (and they need their Parliament approval to go to war, which was THE problem in 9/14 against Syria) and for their nuclear submarines (with American missiles) it's not clear what's going to happen with the base in Scotland ...

so not a lot will be missed.

From the cheap seats on the other side of the pond, I'd have to say no! NATO is not just a European organization.

France Nato yes or no
 

I am finding the comments about France and NATO confusing, probably through ignorance
I recall France leaving NATO over a nuclear weapons issue and then agreeing to a non military stance within NATO, whatever that may be. Now I think they have made some sort of planning agreement to take into account other NATO nations plans and situation but not to be full members. Is that right?

France never left NATO. It remained a full member of the North Atlantic Council but did, in 1966, leave the NATO Integrated Military Structure. It thus ceased to have a MilRep on the Military Committee at NATO HQ, but did maintain active observer status. Sensibly, taking account of its geography in relation to the potential Soviet threat, a number of General to General agreements were then drawn up to ensure that, should war break out, Allied defence could still be conducted. Given changing circumstances, France rejoined the Military Structure in 2009. This link may prove useful:

France and NATO - France-Diplomatie - Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development

Not true, it's not needed, but the PM sought it over Syria, possibly to avoid the kind of fall out seen post Iraq.

https://fullfact.org/law/mps-dont-ha...-action-syria/

To be factually correct; "with American designed, built and maintained missiles". Let's not perpetuate the popular myth that we only rent our 2D5s.

One of NATO's original functions was to deter Soviet expansionism after WWII. The Soviet Union no longer exists, but Russia has recently started to flex its military muscles. So the real question is what will NATO do if there is a serious military conflict involving Russia and one of its members?

I think there are still many citizens in the UK who can recall the serious threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War years. So I think the UK will remain part of NATO for the foreseeable future.

Hmmm

I wonder if NATO has the will to fight a full on war against the Russians, and does it still have the capability ?

For certain the infrastructure in Western Europe is far less than it used to be - as is the number of assets deployed. Does the improvement in quality make up for the degraded quantity ??

And a follow up question - does Russia have the will to fight a full on war against NATO ?? and does it still have the capability ??

They also have a far reduced infrastructure, a reduced number of assets and also further to come to reach the 'old' border area.

A 'good staff question' - any 'good staff answers' out there ?

Arc

"I think there are still many citizens in the UK who can recall the serious threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War years"

well even at the time there was significant minority who didn't recognise it at all - and for anyone under 40 the Cold War is history

Ignore history at your peril.

Erm, ok.

What am I supposed to not ignore?

That the Russians never did invade and destroy us?
That they had nothing like the suspected capability?

NATO has generally been a force for good and why would Uk withdraw, the French did under de Gaulle but there was never the least doubt which side they were on. Simialrly Sweden was neutral and not in Nato and it was just a coincidence that all their equipment was NATO compatible.

The real danger to NATO is America or to be precise a loony right wing America under the likes of Trump why might break it up by accident although i am sure other US Govt forces might just think that too much for them.

The other tricky bit is that the US -UK relationship which smoothed a lot of transatlantic conflicting views over might weaken since the US cousins like dealign with the people who really matter in these affairs and these days thats Hollande and Merkel who can intermingleNATO and EU politics leaving us as sort of nuclear armed Billy no mates -an odd situation

I'm old enough to remember the cold war. I certainly remember NBC drills, working in the R3, being woken in the middle of the night because the scopies could see someone 200 miles north east of Aberdeen, and were worried about it.

The cold war was full of mystery and suspense. I couldn't figure out why the Soviets would invade, and how long it would take for everyone else, including them, to figure out that it was a bad idea.

One of the best lessons to learn from history, is recent history. The Nimrod is gone, and our capability for LRMP went with it. But still, the world turns.

Just because we had it, is no proof that we need it. I'm not saying it was wrong to have the V force and QRA and all the 24/7 readiness that went with that. But we don't have the same enemy, now, real or imagined.

Nobody at the MOD seems to look at what the RAF "need" to do nowadays and what kit they would be best equipped with.

How much better would the last fifteen years have gone, had they bought a **** load of A10s instead of Typhoons?

Don't get me wrong, I know that we need to plan for all sorts of eventualities, not just those that hindsight allows us to play with.

I mean, you can't deny, that if a situation had come up, requiring a load of vandalised Chinooks to be stored in a hangar, sorry, three hangars, at Shawbury, then the RAF would have been well placed to save the day.

Had the Russians, or anyone else, decided to pitch in to Afghanistan, against UK forces, armed with advanced supersonic fighters, then the only problem might have been a shortage of Typhoons. However, when the big "actual need" was for CAS, CSAR & Supply of ammo to the front line, well I don't recall seeing the Typhoon doing much of that.

But mostly, and I know I'm giving away my age here, the main reason for being in NATO was supposed to be mutual defence. So where was the rest of NATO in June 1982 and where will they be the next time that we actually need them?