RIP EDA?
Daniel Korski 12:08pm
If you listen to the Tory front bench, you’d be excused for believing that Rue des Drapiers, 17-23, Ixelles in Belgium houses a place of unadulterated anti-British evil. What lies at this address? The European Defence Agency (EDA), which the Tory party has pledged to pull Britain out of should they win power.
Does this institution really aim to curtail Britain’s procurement of its own military hardware, and suborn future purchases to a common European plan?
The truth is different and a lot more boring. The EDA does not procure anything for EU governments. It does not force the military to do anything. It exists to develop European defence capabilities in crisis management and to enhance European armaments cooperation. It also aims to strengthen the European industrial and technological bases in the field of defence. By trying to stop member-states buying material exclusively from national companies, a practice that produces neither quality nor the lowest price, it seeks to create a competitive European defence equipment market and to promote research.
The EDA most important aim is to boost military spending across the continent. Britain’s NATO allies spend too little and too poorly on defence. NATO has failed to integrate the defence industries of Europe and the United States. Nor has NATO succeeded in streamlining research and technology spending by becoming the hub of cooperative armaments projects. The EDA has had more success. It is creating greater transparency about European defence expenditure. From EDA we learn that Germany has 18126 MoD officials to its 97986 soldiers, but Britain has 85730 to its 194330 servicemen and women – that’s almost four times as many. It tells us that the average number of Italian troops deployed in 2008 was 5 percent; 6 percent in Spain and 3 percent in Poland (In Britain it’s 9.5%). Lest you think Britain always comes out on top, consider this: while the government spends €56,218 on average per soldier, Sweden uses €67,533.
Pulling Britain out of the EDA will not harm – or help – the British armed forces. But Britain does need capable allies. By participating in the EDA, the British government shows allies the way, ensures that defence projects are focused on the right things and can lead a coalition of operationally-minded states among the 27. The end result helps Britain on the battlefield - and cannot be replicated inside NATO if history is any guide to the future. So by all means leave the EDA. It is good politics. But it is worth thinking through how Britain intends to help allies spend more and better on defence.
Previous
Austin Barry
March 12th, 2010 12:41pm Report this comment"...you’d be excused for believing that Rue des Drapiers, 17-23, Ixelles in Belgium houses a place of unadulterated anti-British evil."
No, I remained convinced it's No. 10 Downing Street.
Alex Creel
March 12th, 2010 12:54pm Report this commentSounds like the usual European onion - layers of bureacracy that lead to less transparency. Does the EDA publish results of tenders from manufacturers, is it susceptible to lobbying? What's wrong with defence ministers picking up the phone and talking about these things - ah, silly me, that loosens the federal chokehold! Better out than in by the sound of it.
Barry
March 12th, 2010 1:17pm Report this comment"Pulling Britain out of the EDA will not harm – or help – the British armed forces. But Britain does need capable allies. By participating in the EDA, the British government shows allies the way, ensures that defence projects are focused on the right things and can lead a coalition of operationally-minded states among the 27. The end result helps Britain on the battlefield - and cannot be replicated inside NATO if history is any guide to the future."
All the British need do is use NATO standard equipment, achieve total operational independence and be able to integrate into coalitions. That is all. It never needed anything more.
We don't all need to use the same armoured vehicles across Europe. We don't all need to use the same planes. We don't all need to wear the same caps, use the same ammunition or whatever. We don't need a Euro Navy whereby one lot provides the carrier and others provide escorts and resupply and what have you. Using the military as a means of ever greater integration is the point of EDA (and EURRF) and should be strongly resisted - it drags resources and brains away from the present and cost us operational effectiveness in Afghanistan and Iraq.
With competition between Armed forces about getting good kit for a good price and putting it to effective use you would see defence capabilities increase without neccessarily needing increases in spending. A rote 'need more money' is a tiresome argument. A specious target in fact which can be met simply by wasting money.(Which is what our MoD seems to be doing.)
denis cooper
March 12th, 2010 1:21pm Report this commentWell spun, but the EDA is the product of the EU treaties and therefore can only be intended to further the purposes of the EU.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0001:01:EN:HTML
"Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union"
"PREAMBLE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF DENMARK ... HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, [1]
RESOLVED to mark a new stage in the process of European integration undertaken with the establishment of the European Communities"
...
"RESOLVED to implement a common foreign and security policy including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence in accordance with the provisions of Article 42, thereby reinforcing the European identity and its independence in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world"
...
"RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,
IN VIEW of further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration,
HAVE DECIDED to establish a European Union and to this end have designated as their Plenipotentiaries:
(List of plenipotentiaries not reproduced)
WHO, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:"
"Article 42
(ex Article 17 TEU)
1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.
2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.
3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.
Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as "the European Defence Agency") shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities."
paulg
March 12th, 2010 1:49pm Report this commentWhat allies are you talking about? the belgians who refused to sell us ammunition during the falklands war? or the germans and the French who have tried for centuries to snuff out our way of life? or maybe the spaniards who covert sovereing britsh territory and who supported the argentine whilst they invaded another piece of sovereign british territory?
You clearly don't understand history or even read the newspapers; we have allies who shed blood with us, the blood that runs through their veins runs through ours, they are our true allies. Not you and your kind.
Whig
March 12th, 2010 2:09pm Report this commentSorry to be a pedant Daniel but you're figures are all over the shop - I'm afraid that's just sloppy journalism. I usually rate the Spectator but come on you can do better...
I called up the EDA data myself which took me 2 minutes. The Bundeswehr figures are given as 251,616 so I can only assume you've only counted 'soldiers'? As - contra much media belief otherwise - there are also sailors and airmen in this tally you need to count them properly! Im not sure where your figure for the number of MoD officials came from but from the same data it's declared to be 36,696. That said I read in the Telegraph a German MoD spokesman saying that there are '105,000 civil servants' in the Bundeswehr so I'm confused - but I'm sure you're wrong!
One interesting point these data show is that UK defence spending fell by 17% from 2007-8. It all depends how you count it of course, as they UK does this differently so it's tricky and it's unclear how this figure was arrived at - typical EU eh?
I'm no apologist for the MoD although I can posit a few thoughts why these ratios might be different, aside from the usual bureaucracy which is highly plausible. Britain may do different things with its civil servants - if they are more deployable in intelligence roles, say, then we may need fewer military personnel to perform the same functions. I believe this is true when making a comparison of US-UK armed forces/civil servant ratios.
It's also true that Britain's armed forces spend a lot more time overseas - it's quite easy to administer your armed forces if they don't really go anywhere!
Lastly, Sweden is a poor choice of country to bring up in this context as it's not a member of NATO.
Whether this means being in or out of the EDA is a different issue, but please check and double check facts and figures before 'printing' them, especially as it's quite easy to copy things from one page to another...
Fearless Frank
March 12th, 2010 2:33pm Report this commentThe truth is different and a lot more boring. The EDA does not...
..does not do anything much, going by your account, Daniel.
But, like so many other EU outfits of unclear purpose and doubtful usefulness, I bet it gets a lot of money to do it with.
Jean Monnet
March 12th, 2010 4:05pm Report this commentThis won't do, Spectator high-ups.
By all means employ a Danish propagandist for the EU but not one who is either lying (transparently) or does not have any idea what he's talking about.
A look at the EU treaties (thank you, Mr Cooper) or at one of Gisela Stuart's speeches gives the true picture:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2006-12-06c.366.3
Daniel Korski
March 12th, 2010 5:22pm Report this commentWhig,
I see the German figures as "number of military personnel 97986". See http://www.eda.europa.eu/defencefacts/showvalues.aspx?CountryID=DE&Year=2008
The same data said for the UK
Number of military personnel 194330
Number of civilian personnel 85730
See here for the data: http://www.eda.europa.eu/defencefacts/showvalues.aspx?CountryID=UK&Year=2008
It may be wrong, but I took it straight from their 2008 data. So no mistake on my part as far as I can tell.
Daniel
TomTom
March 12th, 2010 6:09pm Report this commentDoes any EU state outside France use Dassault aircraft or Leclerc tanks ? Of course Russia does now buy French frigates and will build the rest under licence so that's an export success.
Back to top