Helping Europeans on defence is good policy

The Huntsman

This would be all very well if it were not for the ulterior motive of the EU Federalists behind ANY development of an EU (as opposed to NATO)military capability which is to use each such development as an incremental step on the road to an EU Defence Force to give life to the so-called 'common foreign and security policy' which implies the development, in turn, of a 'common defence policy'. (see eg Article 18 of the Consolidated Treaties)

Every cession of military power to the EU is another nail in the sovereignty of the UK, just as each surrender of a veto is a nail in the same coffin.

Good Tory policy ought to be directed to ensuring that we have to rely as little as possible on other European governments for the defence of the UK and UK interests worldwide on the grounds that these other governments often have policies which are either hostile to or at least inimical to those UK interests and are unlikely to lift a finger in our defence.

Tanuki

"European" and 'rapid reaction' are phrases which really don't sit well together. As someone who is deeply ashamed of the side NATO took in last-millennium's Balkans conflict [and the subsequent recognition of the islamic kosovo separatist nonsense] I'm thankful that any idea of an "european army" will remain so horribly tied-up in bureaucratic caveats and constraints that it'll be immobilised-at-source.

TGF UKIP

Bang on, The Huntsman, this is just more Guardian nonsense.

After the Balkans and now Afghanistan can anyone seriously imagine a European Defence "Force"? The French would do the grandstanding and would, of course, require command, the Germans would do the behind the lines (minimum of ten miles) casualty care, the Italians would do the uniforms, The Spanish!! well does Spain even have an army. Any actual fighting would be down to the Brits and Poles (possibly the Czechs too and Dutch and Danes depending which party was in government) and when it all got too much they would go begging to the US again as they had to with the Balkans.

GLC

Any way of getting our EU neighbours to share at least some of the burden in Afghanistan must be a good thing. The US has concluded that if the only way to get France and Germany to stop cowering behind their constitutions is to accept the notion of greater EU defence cooperation, so be it. The UK should, and will, go along with this. Why should it only be our soldiers that pay the price?

Mickey Cool

We need a strong european defence policy. Why are there so many British people who think being a patriot means you must hate europe. We need a strong europe. To protect us from external threats.

David C

Europe has openly stated it believes in 'Soft Power'.
It does not believe in 'boots on the ground' or 'killing the enemy'.

This article is shot through with so many false assumptions and wrong conclusions, I am astonished it actually appeared.

Ann S

Sorry, this is a bad idea. You forget that Europhiles have been working on the 'you give us an inch and we'll take a mile' principle ever since the idea of the EU crawled out of the brain of the well known French Bureaucrat Jean Monnet.
We should fight every further inch they suggest or demand and begin a phased withdrawal from our disastrous European entanglements.

Verity

The Huntsman - Well said, sir!

Mickey Cool - "We need a strong europe. To protect us from external threats." While there's a certain "Carry On" overtone in the notion of "a strong Europe", I'd like to know, "external threats" from who?

Militant Islam? I don't need to remind you that it was European policy devised under Giscard to all millions of primitive Stone Agers into Europe and give them right of abode. As they're the only large, more or less coherent,group of aggressors in the world today, I ask you again, "external threats" from whom?

The sooner we begin formalising the Anglosphere, the better I'll sleep at night.

TomTom

Those paper figures include French gendarmes as part of the Army - in essence one of Europe's smaller armies is British with a mere 25,000 combat troops.

Germany typically provided NATO's second largest tank army after the USA, and has no commitment to having a Bundeswehr as good as the Wehrmacht because the SPD is determined to hold Germany hostage to its history simply to maintain the Left stranglehold on policy.

Anthony

"The sooner we begin formalising the Anglosphere, the better I'll sleep at night."

I suggest you source some pretty potent drugs then, otherwise you're going to be an insomniac for rather a long time.

"Europe has openly stated it believes in 'Soft Power'.
It does not believe in 'boots on the ground' or 'killing the enemy'."

The French are perfectly happy to use hard power, they just talk soft power to try to constrain non-French people from using the hard stuff. The Polish and Czechs have limited aversion to hard power, at least in principle and the Dutch and the Danes are fighting and killing in Afghanistan and have been for years. So there's a limit to how far that can be taken.

Henry Rogers

I suppose one use for an efficient EU army might be to stop states seceding from the EU or refusing to accept the latest nonsense from Brussels. Do we really want that?

Verity

Ann S - Agreed.

Verity

Henry Rogers, one of the uses?

Given that there is no external threat, what other use would there be?

Anthony, who writes, re my comment about the move to a more formal Anglosphere: " suggest you source some pretty potent drugs then, otherwise you're going to be an insomniac for rather a long time."

You are clearly not aware of the movement towards an Anglosphere. I suggest you do some reading and, more important, some thinking. And then come back with your comments. Meanwhile, the nations who have English as their language and English Common Law as the backbone of their legal systems will draw closer together.

This is bad news for the goulash/ragout of "European" law, whatever the hell that is.

Once we're out, trust me, the northern European democracies will follow us. Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (which was never in, but nevertheless had to sign up to the codes) and Ireland. And I am not counting Germany in as a long-term EU member. Just a hunch.

Henry Rogers, my thoughts exactly. What other purpose? There are no external enemies. Only the enemies within, who they have intentionally imported. Has there ever been a more bizarre episode in the history of humanity?

Verity

Anthony - Oh, yes, the old "up the meds" barb that lost its potency on the web a couple of years back through serious over usage.

Hilda

Yes HR. And then No, HR - at least I don't want it. I agree with everyone who doesn't want to be booted about by an ECU that has metamorphosed, OH SO SOFTLY, into a EUSSR. List' ... list' ...'tis iron feet stealing through the Chunnel.

Further, if we've forgotten that some of them are naturally efficent at war machines, then we are fools. And even if others of them usually turn out to be claptrap dolled up in frogging - they're intolerable when in league with the first lot.

In light of history and the old balance of power lessons, then, I say let's mend what business we can, secede, and keep minding our own business -through NATO.

Easier said than done, I know; but...some of the alternatives are already with us...

Cuffleyburgers

Don't forget that the whole EU project has been aimed at the English speaking world from the start.

Let them get on with playing with their tin soldiers. Our interests are best served by strengthening links with the US, and the commonwealth.

Chuck Unsworth

Let's just remember the lessons of history. No matter what the 'treaties' and 'agreements' may be, do we trust any Europeans to come to our aid when the chips are down? For that matter do we trust anyone at all? This numbskull government has entirely lost sight of the dangers.

In the end we are on our own. Just be grateful that we're set in the 'silver sea'.

Henry Rogers

Who is Daniel Korski? Neither his first post about how Cameron could reorganize government when elected or this one about how to reorganize EU defence were greeted with rapture by Coffeehousers. Please, could he post something saying who he is. Does he write a column somewhere else? Or is he a mischievous figment of the Speccie's imagination concocted to wind us all up during the political 'off season'?

London Calling

Hi and Bye Folks, Be Back Soon :)

I am off to join the Deck Chair Parade, build sand castles and count the donkeys...

I love Britain, lets hope we can rebuild it, I shall be thinking about that when I'm making my sand castles.

Proud to be British? we should be, one person can change everything, be inspired......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/03/afghanistan.drugstrade

Nell

Yes, Ann S. And let's keep measuring it in inches and miles - and bring back acres!

Daniel Korski

Hi Henry,

I'm pleased to find that my blogs are not only read and commented on but met with both approval and disapproval.

Quite real, I work for the European Council on Foreign Relations and worked in the Civil Service, specializing in post-conflict issues, including in Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. I also worked in Washington for a while.

You can find out more about my background here: www.ecfr.eu. I also blog on www.globaldahsboard.org, a security-focused blog, and have written for OpenDemocracy, European Voice, Comment is Free, UPI etc.

Have a nice summer.

Daniel

Henry Rogers

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for telling us about yourself. Could it be, and I'm sure that someone else has beaten me to the joke, that you have ended up in the Lion's Den?

David C

The French are happy to use their ‘hard’ power against soft targets (save for their special forces in Afghanistan).
The problem for the French is that they don’t spend efficiently; consequently the potential of their armed services is handicapped. So they are forced to talk soft power to avoid examination of their true capability (Ah, it’s that pesky ‘La Gloire’ again).
The Dutch and Danes are in Afghanistan as part of NATO, the organisation which does have real ‘hard power’, thanks to the US (and for once was prepared to use it)
But behind all this lies the EU which, as part of its ‘raison d’etre’, has eschewed war.

The Huntsman

"European Council on Foreign Relations"

"The European Council on Foreign Relations was launched in October 2007 to promote a more integrated European foreign policy in support of shared European interests and values. With its unique structure, ECFR brings a genuinely pan-European perspective on Europe’s role in the world:

* ECFR was founded by a council whose members include serving and former ministers and parliamentarians, business leaders, distinguished academics, journalists and public intellectuals. Their aim is to promote a new strategic culture at the heart of European foreign policy.
* With offices in seven countries, ECFR’s in-house policy team brings together some of Europe’s most distinguished analysts and policy entrepreneurs to provide advice and proposals on the EU’s global challenges.
* ECFR’s pan-European work through advocacy, the mass media and campaigns make the necessary connections between innovative thinking, policy-making and civic action.

ECFR is backed by the Soros Foundations Network, Sigrid Rausing, the Spanish foundation FRIDE (La Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior), the Italian UniCredit Group, and the Bulgarian Communitas Foundation. ECFR works in partnerships with other organisations but does not make grants to individuals or institutions."

Its Council includes such as Martti Ahtisaari,Giuliano Amato (former Prime Minister and Vice President of the European Convention);

Emma Bonino (former EU Commissioner);

John Bruton (Ireland) - European Commission’s Ambassador to the United States;

Charles Clarke (United Kingdom) - MP; former Home Secretary

Daniel Cohn-Bendit;

Robert Cooper (United Kingdom) - Director General for External and Politico-Military Affairs, General Secretariat of the Council of the EU;

Etienne Davignon (Belgium) - President, Friends of Europe; former Vice President of the European Commission;

Jean-Luc Dehaene (Belgium) - Member of European Parliament; former Prime Minister and Vice President of the European Convention;

Joschka Fischer (Germany) - Former Foreign Minister and vice-Chancellor;

Heather Grabbe (United Kingdom) - Adviser to the EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn;

Fernando Andresen Guimaraes (Portugal) - Adviser to the President of European Commission José Manuel Barroso;

Glenys Kinnock (United Kingdom) - Member of European Parliament, PSE Group;

Pascal Lamy (France) - Honorary President, Notre Europe and Director-General of WTO; former EU Commissioner;

Marcelino Oreja Aguirre (Spain) - former EU Commissioner;

Chris Patten (United Kingdom) former EU Commissioner;

Sir Stephen Wall (United Kingdom) - former Europe advisor to Tony Blair;

A cuckoo in the nest?

One wonders. Mr. Korski, if you perhaps got the wrong building when you formed up for your first day at work. Shouldn't you have gone to Farringdon Road instead?

Will Rees

Weren’t increased military and foreign relation ties in the constitution that French and Dutch electorates said "NO!" to? That such a policy would impact on Irish neutrality was definitely part of their NO campaign, which also won.
Given that the military can also be used for "internal" repression, whilst EUrope is plagued by an 'elite' that seems utterly contemptuous of things like national sovereignty and democratic accountability- THE LAST THING EUROPE NEEDS IS MORE GUNS, TANKS AND BOMBERS.
It may not sit well with the Americans, during the down turn of the 30's GM, Ford, IBM et al did pretty well out of getting Germany in a position to counter "international threats", in hind sight - that didn't pan out too well, well not for Europe anyway.

Verity

The Huntsman - thanks.

As soon as I read Mr Korski's response above, I knew there was no point in reading beyond the second sentence. His original post had AGENDA written all over it.

Coffee House editors, when someone like Mr Korski is accorded a post, I suggested you add a couple of sentences about his background so we know whether to skip forward to the next post without troubling ourselves.

Bexleyite

Go back to bed, Korski.

The EU caused the problem in Yugoslavia, thus in Bosnia, by kowtowing to the Germans in their recognition of Croatia.

The EU has perpetuated the problem in Cyprus by admitting south Cyprus to the EU, despite treaties stating that, quite clearly, Cyprus cannot enter into union with Greece.

Austria signed a treaty refuting any union with Germany.

The EU carries on as if those treaties do not exist.

It is a credit to nation states that many of them do not recognise the EU's partition of Serbia.

You are not part of conflict management, you are part of conflict creation.

E. U. Musgo

So Daniel, you pretty much represent the democratic deficit that goes along with everything EU. Common Foreign Policy and common Defence outside of NATO are not realistic short-term aims for Europe. Because there is no WE. No agreement, no common cause, no selflessness, no suppression of national interest. And to recommend it in the UK where we have no working defence policy at all and no money to do the things we want? Lunacy. When I say you are away with the fairies, some of the names on the list above are the fairies I'm talking about. These people should not be making ot even suggesting policy without a real mandate.

Marian C

"Once we're out, trust me, the northern European democracies will follow us. Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (which was never in, but nevertheless had to sign up to the codes) and Ireland. And I am not counting Germany in as a long-term EU member. Just a hunch"

Verity, Totally agree, the sooner we get out the better.

Marian C

London Calling:- Hope you have a lovely holiday

Marian C

I won't bother wasting my time reading anything else that has been written by Daniel Korski; It's all twaddle

Hilda

Thanks, The Huntsman.

Given EUSSR's public contempt for public opinion, I wonder why Daniel's on this job?

Maybe we should publish pamphlets... like Brits did in previous cultural invasions.

I expect someone's beaten me to this one too---- But, which ever way you can bend it ---that's all she wrote.

Verity

I forgot to mention Iceland above. Iceland, the first country in the world to have had a Parliament, called, heartwarmingly, The Thingi. It met,I believe three or four times a year, but if they felt they didn't really have enough to discuss at an upcoming session, they cancelled it.

These are our kind of people!

The bracing air of democracy and self-determination! A trillion light years from the bureaucratic, dictatorial obsessive snouts in the trough of the moribund EUSSR.

If we go, others will follow. So, for purposes of discussion, boys and girls, how about Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Ireland and Britain crash out of the pen of the EUSSR and form the Northern European Free Trade Association?

NEFTA. Sounds nifty.

Later on, perhaps a trade agreement with NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Association, which is working).

And closer formal links with the Anglosphere.

And bugger the rest of them.

Daniel Korski

Hi all,

I have to say that I have always found the federalist cause odd. I believe firmly in the nation-state, but see many benefits of greater European cooperation and do not think the two are invariably contradictory or that we are heading towards a super-state.

In the coming years, British leaders will face pressing global challenges such as terrorism, international trade negotiations and climate change, which will require joint action and close collaboration between British and European leaders. Why? Because many of these issues are beyond the power of a single country to deal with?

Absent cooperation, there is likely to be one consequence: less British and less European influence in the world. Europe's position in institutions like the World Bank and the IMF relates to its share of world GDP. The dwindling defence spending of European countries weakens all EU members ability to be a military partner of the U.S., or to project military power abroad even for peacekeeping purposes.

So I don’t think there is anyway out of European cooperation - but that does not make one a federalist, or a supporter of a United States of Europe. At least not in any standard definition of the term.

I thought I'd just answer some of the interesting points some of you raised:

Verity - I'd be the first to agree that EU disunity - and German recognition of Croatia - played a key part in the break-up of Yugoslavia. But having worked there for several years after the war I also know that EU money helped return more than 1 million refugees from the homes they had to flee.

Bexleyite - I disagreed with the invitation for Cyprus to join the EU as I thought it took the pressure of for a unification deal. But remember, the Greeks were willing to block Eastern Europe's accession, something which would have been truly terrible. Luckily, it seems the Cypriots are moving towards peace talks.

E.U Musgo - not sure how I, a writer working for a non-profit think tank can represent any kind of democratic deficit or surplus. I am not elected...

Marian C - I hope you will read a few more pieces before you make up your mind.

Verity - having lived in Denmark for many years I don't recognise the kind of sentiments you ascribe to the Danes. Proud to be Danish, sure. Sceptical of the EU, sure. But wanting out of the Union? Not a chance. Denmark's economic situation is entirely different than the UK's and most Danes - a commerce-based nation - know that.

I look forward to living in the den - as far as I recall the Old Testament's Daniel did not do too badly out of the whole experience...

Cheers

John Archer

Verity,

I'm with you all the way.

John Archer

Verity,

I'm with you all the way.

Henry Rogers

Daniel,

When people start talking about 'influence' in the EU context most of us have learned to be very cautious indeed. The truth seems to many of us to be that our electorate in UK (or that in any other member state) has no influence at all over any aspect of the EU enterprize and it never will have. Some would say 'that's the whole idea'. Your view is?

In the EU context 'co-operation' often means everyone does what they are told from the centre even if it's not particularly sensible. Apart from the not so far fetched, but rather scary, idea of an EU army in the future being required to hold the EU together by force, an EU force large enough to do anything beyond EU borders would be a temptation to an undemocratic EU centre to land us all in the very deep and sticky. NATO looks a far more sensible option and it is there already. Also, NATO runs by consent, unlike most things the EU touches.

Lets be honest too, 'doing' something in a major sense about climate change, real or supposed, is a lost cause unless we think we can deny the under developed world the right to aspire to the standard of living we ourselves enjoy.

Terrorism may be a global problem the thought of the EU keeping us all safe in our beds does not reassure.

Daniel Korski

Henry Rogers,

I don't agree that Member States have no influence on the EU. The UK remains very influential indeed, as most serious studies of EU decision-making show. That does not mean London always gets its way, of course.

EU decision-making is very different across the different policy areas. In the area I watch - broadly foreign policy and security - there is no defined centre in the way you speak, unless you are talking about the Council, which is comprised of the Member States.

Allow me to emphasize this point of information. You say that NATO decision-making is by unanimity, as opposed to the EU's. But the EU decision-making procedures in the field of foreign and security policy are intergovernmental. The European Council - the member states - defines the general guidelines , and except for certain decisions on the implementation of joint actions described earlier, all subsequent decisions taken by the Council of Ministers are taken by unanimity.

In contrast to popular lore, Javier Solana's role is very limited, as we have seen over the Iran nuclear negotiations.

Finally, on the point about an EU army; sure there are people advocating for it, especially in Germany. But read Nick's report and tell me if you think that it's a realistic prospect. Instead, what we are talking about is a more limited capability to intervene to stop genocide like in the Balkans. Naturally, this capability would have to follow the rules governing foreign and security policy more generally - i.e. unanimity of the Council/Members.

You argue that "an EU force large enough to do anything beyond EU borders would be a temptation to an undemocratic EU centre to land us all in the very deep and sticky." Well, Eu-badged troops have already deployed outside of Europe, namely in Africa. But secondly,
in today's world we may not be able to avoid what you call the "deep and sticky". We may not be able to stay at hope and hope that the problems in far-away lands stay there.

That does not mean we have to chaser "deep and sticky" situation, but isolationism is not an option, nor is a belief that the UK can do everything by itself. NATO - I'm a great supporter. I always have been and am publishing an article on how the Alliance can reform itself at the next summit. But as a military alliance it will never bring to bear the range of capabilities, including civilian, that modern warfare require. That's just a fact. So where do we go from here?

Cheers

Daniel

Ian C

Daniel,

You're always going to be on a sticky wicket with your position and your arguments:

1) You're clearly a bureaucrat and that means you make work for yourself and we have to pay for it.
2) Bureaucrats go native - especially those involved in remits beyond their shores.
3) The EU, like other mult-nat'l organisations, justify themselves to themselves and then do nothing except colect large cheques from international taxpayers.

While we at CoffeHouse accept that there is much that International Cooperation can achieve, we are not encouraged, hang on, actively discouraged, by the record of same. To be convincing here you are going to have to punch alot higher than you have done so far.

Verity

Daniel writes: "Verity - I'd be the first to agree that EU disunity - and German recognition of Croatia - played a key part in the break-up of Yugoslavia."

It did? I didn't follow that saga, not being anywhere close to Europe at the time, so don't have an opinion. You're confusing me with someone else.

You then go on to make further mistakes. "In the coming years, British leaders will face pressing global challenges such as terrorism, international trade negotiations and climate change, which will require joint action and close collaboration between British and European leaders."

1. Terrorism isn't global. It's a threat to the United States and Britain primarily. I don't know what the hell an Italian army could do that we cannot do 100 times better. The terrorists are after the Anglosphere, not Austria.

The way to combat terrorism is to organise mass repatriation of people who aren't comfortable in our country and lock the borders up. This may mean jettisoning the pan-European passport. In other words, Europe is a large part of the problem on many levels and we need to free ourselves of it. To hell with the rest of them, frankly.

2. "international trade negotiations" are a "pressing global challenge"??? So we should have a European armed forces to combat it?

3. "climate change" is a global challenge? Surely you jest! A European army or whatever it is you envisage, cannot change the activity on the surface of the sun. Climate change has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. West Texas used to be a tropical jungle. Now is plains and desert. Same with Saudi Arabia. Greenland used to be green and lush. I'm afraid the "climate change", formerly known as "man-made climate change", formerly known as "global warming", formerly known as "man-made global warming" is absurd. As is the whole "green" industry.

"The UK remains very influential indeed, as most serious studies of EU decision-making show." Gaaaagghhhhh! They do "serious studies of EU decision-making"? Not just one, which would be bad enough, but lots of them - enough for you to qualify your sentence with "most"?

As to your pensées regarding Denmark,I'm sorry, but if you refer to the tone of my post, you will have gathered that I have no faith in your judgement. I believe that if the Danes could join up with a group of freedom-loving, inventive, motivated capitalist nations with a background in common (N European), they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Further - I most definitely do not want an armed forces owing allegiance to a dictatorship. The EU is the largest anti-democratic organisation in today's world. Just ask Tony Blair, who is expected to be invited by the Nomenklatura to be the unelected president.

Your wordy, tortured response to Henry Rogers above tells us everything we need to know. (You think NATO is such a success that you're writing a "paper" about how it could be tinkered with. Fortunately, the Americans are a slightly more grounded bunch and you won't get the time of day for your "paper".)

Ian C above writes: "Bureaucrats go native." I cannot add to those astute three words.

Henry Rogers

Daniel,

First of all, you really do need to take on board everything Verity has posted on this thread. She may be blunt but she is very sound here.

I would point out that I did not say that NATO decision making required unanimity. I said runs by consent. As a minor example, have a look at the way standards are agreed if possible and if they are not there's that phrase I recall "That's something we will have to leave to the nations". (I used to be slightly involved years ago btw.) Despite the huge disparity between the US and the other nations it does work like an alliance, not a despotism which is what the EU is increasingly becoming despite idealist people such as yourself.

EU peace-keeping hasn't always been outstandingly successful, now has it? I don't want to raise the temperature by going further into that. What scares me is the idea of the centre in Brussels having a big enough force to start sabre-rattling with slightly more dangerous people than Balkan and African ethnic cleansers.

Oh, and you totally dodged the point I made about the EU system being beyond the control of national electorates. The whole corrupt saga of the Lisbon Treaty is as good an example of that point as any.

The Huntsman

Ian C wrote:

"While we at CoffeHouse accept that there is much that International Cooperation can achieve, we are not encouraged, hang on, actively discouraged, by the record of same. To be convincing here you are going to have to punch a lot higher than you have done so far."

The issue of international co-operation is one of the mega-myths of the EU.

We are always being told that this or that (from climate change to trade agreements) can only be achieved if The EU Constitution (known to its friends as the Treaty of Lisbon) comes into force, along with its huge extension of majority voting and the cession of our rights of veto.

Ian C is right that there is much that international co-operation can achieve, but no one ever bothers to explain why this 'must' always be in the context of the system of majority voting (which is no more than a bully boy's charter) which the Euro Nabobs are trying to smuggle into force without recourse to referenda.

Nor is it explained why such co-operation cannot be achieved by agreements between independent sovereign states. They can.

The problem is that the our unelected masters in Brussels do not like it when their schemes do not go through because nation A or nation B takes the view that it is not in their national interest and refuses to agree.

Thus majority voting is to be made the norm to enable them to thwart any resistance and thus introduce measures which may be wholly contrary to the British national interest.

In the context of the EU, therefore, "co-operation" has a rather different meaning. The Lisbon Treaty version ensures that it means "agree or we'll vote it in anyway."

Which brings me to this:

"But the EU decision-making procedures in the field of foreign and security policy are intergovernmental."

Once the EU Constitution is in force, the EU will forge ahead to ensure that this situation is ended as soon as possible by rapid and complete implementation of the concept of the 'common foreign and security policy' which, with the post of EU Foreign Minister, will give the EU an overarching Foreign Policy of its own. It is already in an advanced state of implementation with planning and establishment of the EU Foreign Service already well under way (quite illegally, by the way, given the fact that the treaty is yet to come into force). Once this is all in place, foreign policy will be imposed upon us vertically and will cease to be agreed horizontally, inter partes.

Working for his glorified Euro-Quango, Mr. Korski has plainly gone native and has doubtless grown used to unquestioning agreement with his views from the other fish with whom he has been sharing his little Euro goldfish bowl. He will find that most who stop off at The Coffee House are more piranha-like than he has been used to hitherto.

Jeremy Poynton

Too late with your protestations; New Stasi have seen to it that many are utterly suspicious of the European project.

And in that vein, I would ask "Good policy. For who?". I seen nothing there for me as a citizen of the UK except the loss of even more sovereignty to unelected and unaccountable bodies.

In effect, a putsch.

Verity

The Huntsman, well said again! Every word a masterly skewer run through the bloated, utterly pointless, body of the EU.

I wonder how many people are "employed", in the EU. What are they all for? What do they do that is not done better, and more suited to the will of the taxpayer, by national governments?

A free trade association between the freedom-loving, inventive (I mean, in a thousand years, could the Spanish have thought up Abba?)highly democratic northern Europeans? This outfit would be a bundle of energy and invention.

Jeremy Poynton, your point is well-put.

Nell

I agree with Huntsman, Verity, and all good Coffee Housers - not with Daniel.

Incidentally, Daniel, I can't believe the Lion's Den will be your cup of tea; your kind just see the world all up-so-down - and, all the while, it isn't.

As for that vile eu passport, Verity: the thing nauseated me. Threw mine away in the end--ashamed to use it.

Verity

BTW, who chose the photo to illustrate this post?

Verity

My guess,it was Daniel who sent the accompanying photo. The clue is in his EU/One Worlder agenda. No photos of an indigenous European? - given that Daniel is positing a pan-European defence uberlord and all, and given that the vast majoritiy of those enlisted in the armed forces in Britain and Europe are indigenes?

And even if a photo of non-indigene were - inexplicably - chosen, there is no identifying insignia or national paraphenalia in the photo. (Granted, I'm not a military buff.) This chap looks as though he is kitted out in tropical gear in the tropics.

How does this support your agenda, Daniel, of having a "pan-European" military to protect Europe against the phantom "enemies" you conjured up, like global trade agreements?

This entire post was sickeningly manipulative and Sovietesque. "And now, folks, after the break, tractor production figures for June! Stay tuned! - and if you don't, we'll switch off your electricity!"

David Hannah

So the EU gives Britain more "influence" in the world does it? Given that the UK's net contribution to the EU budget is in the region of £5 billion per annum (rising to £6 billion in five years, giving us an extra £1 billion worth of influence do doubt) I am rather disappointed by the amount of real (and not imaginary) influence we get for our money.

If we were to spend a similar amount each year extra on defence (instead of funding disastrous policies such as the CAP and the CFP), we could fund an additional 65,000 ton aircraft carrier, a type 45 destroyer, five infantry battalions and 10 F-35 Lightning II strike aircraft, EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

I wonder which would really give us more influence in the world, not to mention more security?

Henry Rogers

David,

EU proponents love to talk about 'influence'. It has a huge advantage, there is no way of measuring it's effects. When smoothly presended in the slightly patronizing way, the respectful audience is supposed to shut up and agree with their intellectual superiors.

The sad thing is, the people who talk about influence are not all devious manipulators. Many, perhaps even most, have been conned into believing it. BS it is and BS it always was.

Verity

Henry Rogers and David. Point about this word "influence" well-taken. In fact, I'd like to hear some examples, from these people, of some decisions that our "influence" has affected. My guess: zero.

In any event, we and the Americans saved the whole bloody continent. I think that fact alone gives us elevated standing. We really shouldn't have bothered.

The whole bloody concept is BS, Henry Rogers.

Henry Rogers

Verity,

Of course the concept was, is and ever more will be BS. Likewise there will never be a shortage of naive idealists ready to do the work of devious manipulators.

What so annoys me that the original proposition put to us, and for which I myself voted 34 years ago, turns out to have been nothing but a pack of lies designed to conceal the reality which we now see.

Which is why poor Daniel, who seems to be a nice, well meaning chap, if a bit misguided, is likely to get a hard time here if he posts more of the same.

Verity

We have three choices. (I do not regard remaining in this roiling, toxic, corrupt dictatorship a choice.) One is applying to become a state of the United States. I know that Americans complain about their government - I used to complain when I lived there - but they are vastly better governed - even when the Dems are in - than is Britain. And they have far strong, unbreachable checks and balances.

Option number two (in no particular order) is to get out of the EU and form NEFTA, the Northern European Free Trade Association, which would include, besides ourselves, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland and Ireland. This is all the most creative, most energetic, least bureaucracy-laden people in Europe. We could later,if we wished, have an arrangement with NAFTA which is going like the clappers.

Option number three, again in no particular order, would be the formalisation of the Anglosphere, which would make us the strongest group on the planet.

David Hannah

It is a no-brainer Verity. Britain's history has been most profound when we have looked beyond the seas and embraced the whole world, not just one little part of it. The parochial 'European project' with its continental mindset (or perhaps simply a French mindset) is anathema to all that we stand for, and all that we have achieved in the world.

If we wish to build new military alliances, it would make far more sense to forge them with those nations that we will most likely find ourselves alongside on the battlefield. As if it needed saying, these nations include the US, and of course, the other Commonwealth Realms of Australia, Canada and New Zealand (arguably the nations with which we have most in common, so let's not forget the Commonwealth). Our traditional allies in the Anglosphere (or whatever one wishes to call it) should supplant NATO as the core of our defence posture in the 21st Century.

I suspect this will happen anyway over time. The Angloshere does not need to be formalised, as it is such a natural grouping that our co-operation is guaranteed in times of trouble. We do not need Constitutions and verbose treaties versed in impenetrable jargon to enforce our mutual support. We are family.

To those who doubt this thesis, a cursory glance at the front lines in Afghanistan ought to tell us who our real friends are. Our 'European partners' are conspicuous by their absence, so why would any sane person on these islands wish to create a role for them in our future security?

Verity

David Hannah, My own belief is that our future lies with the Anglosphere, and I have so written on this site before.

Certainly, no need for weighty,toxic "constitutions" and layers and layers and layers of bureaucracy to administer it. The Anglosphere is traditinally light on its feet.

We need to invite India into full participation because although there are around 300 languages in the country, the method of governance is Parliamentary, based on Westminster before it became a third world corrupt cesspit, and their law is English Common Law. And everyone with any schooling at all speaks English - many of them with considerably more literate English than is spoken on the streets of England these days.

If we go with the Anglosphere option, I fear the "inclusivity" termites might try to destroy the structure by wanting to admit others. This cannot happen. The Anglosphere means the Anglosphere.

Freeborn John

This is the usual “integration by stealth” agenda made by a usual suspect. The UK should never follow the advice of anyone who works for the “European Council on Foreign Relations”. Instead we should be reminding European ‘partners’ that NATO is the only body able to deter the Russians and the only forum through which the UK will provide military guarantees to Continental countries. The UK must never get into a position where it and France are guaranteeing to intervene militarily in support of 25 other EU member-states through an “autonomous European defence” (to use Sarkozy’s phrase) which in reality would be no more capable of deterring a major land power in Eastern Europe than the ‘guarantees’ which the UK and France offered Poland in 1939.