What is going on with this Anglo/French Defence Treaty?

Richard North writes with magisterial venom today about the Defence Treaty being signed at Lancaster House.

the great greasy-pole merchant Liam Fox - so ambitious he would sell his mother for a farthing if it bought preferment - has sold us out to the forces of European integration, cosying up to his euroslime master Cameron in the process.

Tell us as if you mean it Richard, (or should I call you Ricard in these moments?), he then goes on to explain how, depsite the blandishment of the craven fools in Government and  their cheerleaders why this is a European Union project, not a bilateral one,

Needless to say, this "new" Combined Joint Expeditionary Force is not new. It is simply a battle group, along the lines agreed in 2004 as the core part of the European Rapid Reaction Force.

Yes it was always part of the plan,

This is a continuation of the Maastricht Treaty agenda, as this briefing note makes clear. Agreed by the Tories under John Major, this set up the parameters for the development of a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The process continued with the Franco-British meeting in Saint-Malo (France) in December 1998. That was when London and Paris agreed to jointly and actively work to make the European Union "able to carry out some security tasks on its own".


During the period 1999-2003, the EU set up relevant political-military structures to assess, decide, plan and execute military operations and now it is "moving ahead" to embark on a "second round". And that is what this is, the "second round" - building the ESDP, planning and organising new military "cooperation" and integration among EU member states. The current move is the Trojan Horse or, as the "colleagues" say, the catalyst.

Over at the Telegraph we have an extraordinary letter defending the decision,

As the French and British governments seek to maintain military capabilities during the toughest spending climate in living memory, it is essential that greater co-operation be on the agenda at today’s summit.

It whiffles on and concludes,

Anglo-French defence cooperation offers an obvious way forward which we cannot afford to ignore. The security of Britain, France and Europe is at stake.

Utterly denying the facts that this is an EU inspired Treaty. and the signatories, it is a  list of the European elite, names that should and will be remembered. In 1940 Cato wrote the famous book "The Guilty Men" then it was about appeasement, today we have a new list, emblazoned in the Telegraph,

Roland Rudd

Chairman, Business for New Europe
Claude Bébéar
President, Institut Montaigne
Sir Richard Branson
Chairman, Virgin Group
Major General Tim Cross (retd)
Sir Richard Dearlove
Head, Secret Intelligence Service 1999-2004
Etienne de Durand
French Institute of International Relations
Charles Grant
Director, Centre for European Reform
Sir John Grant
UK Permanent Representative to the EU 2003-2007
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank
Chief of the Defence Staff 1997-2001
Professor Stephen Haseler
Director, Global Policy Institute
François Heisbourg
Special adviser, Foundation for Strategic Research
Lord Jay of Ewelme
Former head, Diplomatic Service
Mark Leonard
Director, European Council on Foreign Relations
Karine Lisbonne-de Vergeron
Fellow, Global Policy Institute, London
Peter Luff
Chairman, European Movement
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
Liberal Democrat Cabinet Office spokesman
Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge
Chairman, Nomura International
Dominique Moïsi
Professor, College of Europe and Harvard University
Contre-Amiral Michel Picard
Former head, Force de Frappe
Vice-Amiral Patrice Puy-Montbrun
Sir Mike Rake
Chairman, BT
Lord West of Spithead
First Sea Lord 2002-2006
John Stevens
Chairman, Europachannel
Bruno Tertrais
Foundation for Strategic Research

Elsewhere here may be answer as to why UK Aircraft carriers will carry French planes, they are desperate for a market, according to the FT,

Even more worrying is the continuing dearth of export orders for the Dassault Rafale multi-role combat aircraft.


France has yet to win an export order for the Rafale. It has been trying for a decade without success. Securing a foreign order for this combat aircraft is not just a matter of prestige for the French. After all, Serge Dassault, the veteran controlling shareholder of the eponymous aircraft maker, is also a senator and member of the governing UMP party and owner of Le Figaro, the slavishly pro-Sarkozy newspaper.

But there are more important reasons why Rafale export sales are so crucial. Exports would reduce the overall cost of the programme at the same time as providing funds to help finance new research and technology. Without exports, there is the risk that France would no longer be able to ensure the autonomy of its military aircraft industry, especially when the time eventually comes to develop a replacement for the Rafale.

Last, but not least, failure to export the combat aircraft will put further stress on the country’s already stretched Treasury. Indeed, the French Defence Ministry has decided to order 11 additional Rafales next year earlier than scheduled to ensure that production lines keep running. This will cost the taxpayer an extra €800m ($1.1bn).

It is not for lack of trying on the part of the president that France has so far failed to place an export order for the Rafale.

Who voted for this? Did anybody? Did any man or woman put their cross in a Tory box on election day and imagine that all this would come about? Of course not. Sadly they have only themselves to blame as it is not as if they werwe not warned. The warnings of course were dimissed as scare mongering by UKIP.

Well who is scared now?

Defence of whose Realm?

Footling around today I see that Douglas Carswell picked up an aspect of the Strategic Defence Review that hasn't received much exposure as opposed to the headline aircraft carrier business. That is those parts of the Defence Strategy that refer to our European entanglements. Now as it is Trafalgar day in a couple of short days it seems relevant to take a look at this. Sure enough Section 5.12 or the SDR has the European Section,5.12

Britain will "make an effective contribution to the European border agency, Frontex".

"Ensure the new EU budget ... targets funding at key security challenges facing the EU".

"Work to ensure that EU civil protection arrangements focus on shared risk assessment and prevention ... and maximise awareness of critical infrastructure dependencies".

"Support EU missions - whether military or civilian ..."

What Douglas hasn't done is to look at the European Budget Statement that came out today.

Responding to crisis situations

It is particularly important to improve the Union's ability to respond to large-scale conflicts or disasters. The EU's essential contribution to the broader security dimension of external relations points to a need to build on current tools like the Instrument for Stability, CFSP actions and Election Observation Missions. Speed of deployment, flexibility and the ability to modulate action in line with changing political circumstances are all essential components

My italics.
Seems that the new EU budget is doing just that.

Sarko starts his (EU) Presidency early

It has long been felt that the French EU Presidency starting in July would be quite a whizz bang affair. The key area flagged up will be defence and the acceleration of the European defence identity. According to a report in the FT it apears that he is trying to make his own personal Chritmas come early. He has written to Brown.

In the letter, Mr Sarkozy is thought to have cited Future Rapid Effects System, the British army’s biggest procurement programme, which will give it a new generation of armoured vehicles, as one area where co-operation would help both countries. The programme will see Britain spend up to £16bn (€20.5bn, $31.7bn) on 3,000 vehicles.

Industry sources say they expect Mr Sarkozy to press Mr Brown to select a vehicle designed by Nexter, the French state-owned company, when they meet in London next week.

Nexter is competing against a bid from General Dynamics of the US, and the Americans are widely seen as the frontrunner. In a last-ditch attempt to influence the decision, the chairman of Nexter recently wrote to the UK defence ministry offering to provide the vehicles by 2011 – one year before the date set by the government.

I can see how it might help France, and the European Army, but I fail to see how this system could possibly help our national interest. For background (a lot of it go here and here)

"The third of the vehicles on the shortlist, the French-built (Renault) VBCI, stems from a French Army contract issued in November 2000, with first deliveries in 2008. If it entered British service by the earliest projected in-service date for FRES of 2012, it would be a 12 year-old design, with the origins of the concept stretching back into the 80s."

Which given that Nexter themselves suggest the vehihcle will be around for 40 years that'll mean that in the end the Army are looking to be driving around in 70 year old kit. Even this government cannot be happy about that... can they?

Comment Thread

NEUTO

Yesterday's comments by Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Sectretary General of NATO at the German Marshall Fund Brussels Forum on future of NATO EU relations really shouldn't come as a great surprise. De Hoop Scheffer is a fully fledged member of the European Elite. It will also come as no surprise that his comments have not been covered in the British press.

Rueters, Bloomberg, EUBusiness and New Zealand Television spotted it and for that I suppose we should be thankful.

Reuters bluntly headline their piece “Nato chief calls for military tie-ups with EU”, and go on to explain that,

“He told a security conference in Brussels it was vital that NATO and the EU had equal access to the armies of their member countries, more than 20 of which belong to both bodies”.

Scheffer said,

“I believe that taking NATO reform seriously means also to look for more synergies with the European Union. I would like to see much more pooling of our capabilities, especially in areas such as vital enablers, transport and helicopters, or in research and development, or in harmonising our force structures and training methods. After all we only have one common set of national defence budgets and national military forces. So it is absolutely critical that all of the capabilities that we are able to generate from this pool of forces are equally available to both NATO and the EU”.

This all about laying the groundwork for what will be an entirely new defence structure which will be in place by next year,

“As things now stand, I hope and expect that work on a new Strategic Concept will commence at our next Summit in 2009, NATO’s 60th Anniversary. Anniversaries
in NATO are not just about past achievements. They are first and foremost about the future. With a new US Administration in office, a new French approach vis-à-vis NATO, and a new dynamic in the European integration process, I believe that our 2009 Summit should produce a short but powerful document that reaffirms the enduring fundamentals of transatlantic security cooperation, and lay down some parameters for a new Strategic Concept. For want of a better term, let me call this document an “Atlantic Charter”.

Make no bones about this, this Atlantic Charter will mark a fundamental shift from the current inter-governmentalism of NATO to the supra-governmentalism so beloved by the EU.
As a former leader of the CDA in Holland, the most avowedly pro EU Dutch political party, and then its Foreign Minister during the negotiations over the European Constitution. Here he is in 2005 days after his own people rejected it,

“of course the referendum in France and the Netherlands will have consequences for European integration, but we in NATO…and here, of course, I'm speaking as NATO’s Secretary General, and not as a Dutch citizen who voted in favor, by the way, of the European constitution, which given my past will not come as a surprise to you, so I mean there is no reason to secret about that, it is essential for NATO in its relationship in the strategic partnership, we are seeking in NATO, that the European Union will further integrate including a security and defense, including assuming and building on a security and defense identity, as it is called”.

Interestingly as he was saying this in America, back in Europe the Maastricht rebel John Wilkinson was saying almost exactly the same thing at the Western European Union,

“The French and Dutch rejection of the European constitutional treaty makes it “all the more important to maintain” the WEU’s commitment to achieving its 2010 Headline Goal and to “carry forward the practical work on cooperation in European security and defence,” Defence Committee Chairman John Wilkinson (UK/Con)”.

The report he was supporting called for the following that he WEU and the EU should,

“persevere with their efforts to give the ESDP the necessary structures and resources, in particular by incorporating a proper intelligence policy in the ESDP; introducing a minimum procedure for qualified majority voting in ESDP decision-making processes; developing the Civilian/Military Cell and putting in place a genuine multinational operations headquarters,”

And all this has come to pass.

In yesterday's speech Scheffer ticked all the scare boxes, from cyber-crime, through international terrorism up to and inevitably including global warming. However the plans he is putting together have massive implications for the future of Britain's security and its relationship with its allies for good or ill. That this is the case is self evident. The only question that remains is why on earth do we hear nothing about this from either our politicians or our media?

(Projected) Tory spending wars

As if in confirmation of Simon Heffer's comments yesterday,

The Tories gave the impression on Thursday that they would like to spend an extra £28 billion a year on the NHS. This is the same party that has bullied its defence spokesman into not talking about the far more obvious need to fund our Armed Forces properly, something that even just £4-5 billion would help put right. This is the party that struggled to locate the £3.5 billion needed to pay for its promises to cut stamp duty and inheritance tax. So where is this massive sum - equivalent to 9p on the basic rate of income tax - supposed to come from?

Liam Fox the Tory, shadow defence secretary has been interviewed by the Sunday Telegraph saying that it would be "inconceivable" that the defence budget could be cut while the forces were still fighting a war in Afghanistan.

After Lansley, Shadow Health had made his comments promised that health budget could rise by 2% as a proportion of gross domestic product - an increase of £28 billion. What with Osborne committing the Tories to Labours spending plans for three years the cuts will have to come from somewhere.

On being reminded of Lansley's words, Fox said,

"I just think it is a timely reminder of the need to be very disciplined and careful when discussing any spending plans... But I find it inconceivable that the Conservatives would cut the defence budget while we are still fighting a war. There is no question of cutting defence."

It not not having cuts that is required is increase in spending, and increase in spending on the things that will help us fight the wars we are fighting.

From this interview it appears that the Tories are so busy fighting their own civil war to realise the needs of our servicemen in theatre.

What on earth are they playing at?