Written by Lt Gen Jonathon Riley
[Ed: Readers have linked to this article which was published in ‘Briefings for Britain’ We believe it is so important that we republish it here in two parts, with the kind permission of ‘Briefings for Britain’. You can read Part One here]
UK political advice on the subject is back in the wrong hands
The fact remains that no salaried official on the Brexit side of the argument has the sole task of understanding the EU defence architecture, despite its size and political significance for the current government. Therefore, the current process in which the Government ‘considers’ attachment is back in the hands of the officials who engineered May’s intended commitment.
The role of ‘freelancing’ UK officials cannot be underestimated
A small group of officials who possess the most knowledge of the EU defence architecture have provided their views on the subject at various times. Their views can be found within publicly-available information, often in the form of speeches at think tanks or Parliamentary hearings. Their contributions present an entirely complimentary view of the EU defence architecture and puts forward a case for UK involvement. At no point do they urge caution about the risks to UK autonomy from collective EU decision-making formats, neither do they give reference to these risks. It is noteworthy that several of these officials have either had second jobs or previous jobs in the EU’s institutions.
Their role in the UK’s involvement in the EU defence architecture is extensive, has taken place over several years and deserves an analysis of its own. Their role is essential for anyone attempting to understand MPs’ low awareness and ministers’ questionable decision-making in this topic. Bringing the UK to the brink of being perpetually under EU defence decision-making is a vast and complicated task. It is difficult to see how it could have been conceived and carried out without a controlling influence from the officials who actually understood the subject rather than the ministers who did not.
Drawing a line in the sand
The Johnson Government must be encouraged to maintain its line and avoid moving back towards an attachment to the defence policy of the EU institutions as proposed during Theresa May’s premiership. It is unrealistic to expect non-Government MPs to help in this endeavour because inadequate or incorrect briefings have made them part of the problem. The key to preventing slippage is the supply of information to key decision-makers and the public about the EU defence architecture and the three components of it named in the Political Declaration.
The EU wants the UK to remain attached to its defence policy architecture and the period of risk extends for the duration of the Implementation Period (also known as transition period). During this time, the UK remains within the bulk of the legal commitments associated with the EU defence architecture (including the commitments to EU foreign, security and defence policy found in Title V of the EU treaties). This provides the EU (and those keen on UK attachment to EU defence) with a regulatory ‘bridge’ allowing the EU to describe attachment as mere continuity. After 31 December 2020, UK adherence to the EU defence architecture must be constructed from a blank canvas and new laws implemented for the purpose, thus guaranteeing considerable inertia or opposition, something the EU wants to avoid.
What ministers need to know
Several points must be made clear to those supporting the UK side of the future partnership talks:
- Any amount of structured UK involvement in the EU defence architecture, including its defence industrial bodies, brings an obligation to follow EU defence policy. This is made clear by the EU’s statements and rules and confirmed by EU officials and UK officials. It is also illustrated by the networked structure of the EU’s new defence architecture. Less well-informed UK officials have once mistakenly suggested that obligations may be reduced through negotiation.
- The EU is not offering ad hoc involvement in EU defence bodies, it is offering attachment on the same basis and with the same expectations as member states. This means full compliance with the EU as described in the defence parts of the EU treaties, directives and EU Council agreements.
- UK attachment to EU defence industrial bodies is not an advantage to UK industry but rather an impediment because of the rules, benchmarks and strategies the EU imposes. These bodies and their associated rules work to remove UK industry’s advantage in respect to the UK Government defence equipment budget (the largest in Europe), in order to create a ‘domestic’ EU-wide defence procurement market. Under this arrangement, purchasing authorities (e.g. the UK Ministry of Defence) must pursue an EU definition of ‘best value’ which is not allowed to include national taxpayer best value or national interest. Therefore, the national advantages derived from retaining a contract domestically (such as preserving jobs, investment or essential skills) cannot be a decisive factor in awarding the contract. It is through this EU mechanism that the UK has seen many of its large defence contracts lost to overseas (including non-EU) shipbuilders, manufacturers and suppliers. British industry would continue to lose opportunities in this way if it is compelled to stay in EU mechanisms by the three defence bodies named in the Political Declaration. In fact the situation would become worse as the industrial rules and strategies of the EU defence architecture are growing in scope and power. It is important to mention this subject because ministers’ understanding of the defence industry dimension could ultimately be decisive in whether the UK participates in the whole EU defence architecture.
The End
~ *** ~
Lieutenant-General Jonathon Riley was deputy commander of the NATO-led ISAF force in Afghanistan. He also commanded British forces in Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Iraq. He is a military historian and visiting lecturer at Birmingham University and King’s College London, Department of War Studies, and an author and lecturer on Military and Defence Security around the globe.
Why is Therese May still allowed to sit in the House.
She is still an MP for Maidenhead. She resigned only as Prime Minister.
We have already left the EU, and barring stupidity we will be clear entirely by the end of this year !
The British Forces stand by The Crown, as well honoured in our British history.
So will the future of our Services become Mercenary Forces to the will and wish of a Foreign Power ?
Are our Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen ready and willing to be seen as a bought force, by the EU ?
I WILL SIMPLY SAY NO ! ….. Telling the TRUTH as I see it could damage the internet !
What a total joke our ‘defences’ are. We can’t even stop dinghies in plain sight from ‘invading’ our shores.
For one reason or another we are just totally incapable of securing our borders, our businesses and even our history – all are being destroyed beyond recognition by ‘infiltraitors’ who have a high-profile destructive agenda far exceeding their numbers, and who are being allowed to affect our traditions and are determined to alter forever our way of life. We must not let it happen. There is still an outside chance especially now that our futures are now teetering on the edge.
Not for the first time the only person of ANY stature to bring this pathetic tragi-comedy, of the laughable Border Force, for instance, to the attention of the British people is………..the one and only Nigel.
The entire Pantomime is not only an insult to those who have voted into power a ‘Government’ after childish, nay, infantile performances from EVERYONE in the Houses of Parliament for months on end, and we are regularly being made a laughing stock by this over-paid, incompetent ‘ship of fools’ – led by Billy-Bunter Boris who can’t tell his *rse from his elbow and his entire history both personal and political illustrates his flimsy grasp of any serious problem or emergency.
It has been said before but I simply must say it again……….we need a total Sea-change (no pun intended!) in our political landscape, and we will not move forward in that enterprise if the alternative we are presented with is the Machiavellian Lawyer/Barrister who leads the ‘opposition’, the MILLIONAIRE SOCIALIST and manipulator-in-chief, Starmer.
We MUST have new faces, men and women who are or have been down-to-earth breadwinners and ordinary working-class folk – who call a spade a spade and who can voice the true thoughts of the British public………………So…..step forward the likes of Nigel Farage, Gerard Batten, Tommy Robinson and those others who have been vilified and demonised by every part of the ‘establishment’ including our gutless press, BBC and monied-morons who only survive because for far too long we have trusted them to properly and professionally represent us – and they have all failed us miserably.
Yes, I DO go on! But I have no intention of jumping-ship and voting in future for any one of the three main Political Parties – they are all tarred with the same brush and in fact ANY alternative would be better than the morons who currently sit in that hallowed place.
I absolutely agree misterpaul.
Our Border Farce taxi service in action assisted by the French friends of illegal traffickers.
Full version:
https://youtu.be/qyuSrwWl9iY
Mrpaul5a. I don’t agree with everything you say. However, if Nigel, Gerrard or Tommy would care to stand in this constituency I’d happily vote for them. Also, maybe they could offer their advice on subjects that they know about. It might be accepted. Nigel has made HIS point loud and clear. It MUST have been heard.
Jonathan Riley’s post is very worrying. It is detailed and well argued. It makes it very clear that May’s government were led by the nose by high ranking officials and advisers who are pro EU. These same people are STILL in office and due to the complexities involved and the machinations of the EU structures, decision makers on our side are all to easily taken in.
I’m not well enough informed to say exactly how this message can be put through to TPB but I sincerely hope it has been.
Think I said yesterday – If we simply Crash Out – it remains the best option – presumably that would nullify ALL proposed ‘collaboration’ on defense.
The people who had the potential to match Barnier, et al, were disposed of by May – and as a consequence the scenario kept changing in favour of the EU.
We simply did not have amongst our politicians and Civil Servants people with sufficient commitment to, or sufficiently strong or with sufficient top-notch qualities, to match Barnier………….in the duscussion of or on politics I stick with my golden rule……..”set a thief to catch a thief”……..just as in the case of Trump and Xi. Trump can see through Xi because he is cut from the same cloth – devious, determined, dedicated and deceitful………! How fortunate we are to have President Trump at this time in works history….he may, given a second Term, turn the tables and the tide in favour of the Free World………….we need a Trump in thus country……….names???
We have NATO; we don’t need any participation in EU defence or common procurement. The way the EU is going we need the credible threat of an opposing force to protect our country. As as been said elsewhere a country that is unable to defend itself is not a sovereign country and our traditional enemies across the Channel may well revert to type. We also need to increase the manpower of our forces substantially which would also provide employment opportunities, as would the restoration of our defence industry.
Agreed Jack T
Is treason even a word these days?
Obviously, we need to be spending our military budget in the UK where possible to grow our own economy and create jobs. E.g. with UK shipyards building ships for our navy we’d retain the skills and capabilities that’d see them competitive for commercial shipbuilding. We also need to get utterly and completely divested of EU regulations and their whole sclerotic way of thinking that stifles the creativity so necessary in staying ahead of hostiles and leaves buyers open to the corrupting influence of suppliers and their snake-oil salesmen.
(Hint: The Vulcan Bomber wasn’t designed by the EU!)
Why is this even a discussion!
Michael, Boris Johnson’s Withdrawal Treaty that got the Royal Assent in January is a document of unconditional surrender to the EU, that makes Britain a perpetual prisoner of the EU for as long as the EU wants. It is Theresa May’s mendaciously named Withdrawal Agreement, apart from some trivial details, the same Treaty that Boris Johnson angrily denounced as a “vassalage treaty”.
The Withdrawal Treaty that our idiotic MPs voted through in January makes Britain subject to EU laws, EU courts and all EU policies through its Political Declaration, including military policies. Soon the Britain’s armed forces will be under EU command, if they are not already. It is utterly impossible for Britain to escape from colonial status under the terms of the WA & PD. Whitehall bureaucrats have crushed the rebellion of 23rd June 2016.
No Ralph Prothero. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Pauline Baxter, the WA & PD verify my comment. By agreeing to the Withdrawal Treaty our Parliament in Westminster has locked the UK into “close regulatory alignment” with the EU in all spheres, including the military.
That can not be so Ralph. Perhaps that was in May’s version but taken out. If we are locked in close regulatory alignment there would be no trade discussions ongoing.
Quite right MK. Errr . . forgive the punny, but it’s hardly rocket science is it.
That comment is agreeing with Michael Keal.