The European Union is considering controversial plans to allow the bloc to deploy a joint military force without the unanimous support of all its member states.
Removing the need for unanimity would stop a country blocking the rapid reaction force of 5,000 troops from being sent to crisis situations independently of Washington and Nato.
The plans are laid out in a document called the “Strategic Compass”.The document is the closest thing the EU could have to a military doctrine and akin to NATO’s “Strategic Concept” that sets out alliance goals.
Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign affairs chief, said, “To pretend to be just soft power, when everything is being weaponised, is certainly not enough.”
“Europe cannot afford to be a bystander in a world order that is mainly shaped by others,” a draft of the document obtained by The Telegraph, said.
Mr Borrell told a group of European newspapers smaller groups of member states could take joint action and “we cannot decide by unanimity every step of the process.”
“I am not asking for changing the rules and going to abolish the unanimity because I know that is not the best way of acting. Because to abandon your unanimity, it requires unanimity – and this is not going to happen. What I believe is that this institutional setting can be ‘flexibilised’ in order to act quicker and better,” he said.
Removing unanimity will be resisted by some member states, wary of losing the political leverage of their veto, and Eastern European countries, who fear a joint military force could undermine the military alliance.
One diplomat said the new force, “will work with unanimity, as doing otherwise would be in contradiction to the treaties.”
“It’s very legitimate to have a discussion about the desirability of unanimity in EU foreign policy, but Strategic Compass is not the place to have that discussion,” the diplomat said.
An Eastern European diplomat told the EurActiv website “unanimity needs to remain the guiding principle”.
The EU has had battlegroups of 1,500 soldiers standing by since 2007 but they have never once been used due to a lack of political and the need for unanimity.
The draft plans, which are at an early stage, suggest member states could abstain from military action to “enable willing and capable European-led coalitions”.
EU officials aim to set out how the EU treaties could allow a smaller group of member states to plan a mission together by 2023, the document said.
The EU Rapid Deployment Capacity will be able to “swiftly deploy a modular force of up to 5,000 troops, including land, air and maritime components,” the draft said.
The EU would agree “operational scenarios in 2022” and “regular live exercises will improve readiness and interoperability” from 2023.
Mr Borrell on Wednesday presented the blueprint to EU commissioners in Brussels on Wednesday. The document will be discussed at a meeting on Monday of foreign and defence ministers. Member states are planning to agree a joint document on common defence by March.
“Europe is in danger,” the EU’s foreign policy chief said in the document, “All the threats we face are intensifying and the capacity of individual member states to cope is insufficient and declining.”
The plans for the joint reaction force and a bolstered common defence will be seen by some as a stepping stone to an eventual EU army, although that remains a very distant prospect.
Donald Trump’s unpredictable presidency convinced Brussels it could not rely solely on the US as the guarantor of their security.
The chaotic US-led evacuation of Afghanistan put fresh impetus behind the plans to bolster the EU’s military capacity.
France, the EU’s major military power after Brexit, will hold the rotating presidency of the EU from January 1 and will look to use the role to drive forward the plans.
Emmanuel Macron secured Joe Biden’s backing for “a stronger and more capable European defence” that is “complementary to Nato” in talks to rebuild relations after the Auukus submarine row.
The Strategic Compass document said that the US-led NATO remained primarily responsible for Europe’s collective defence and that the EU was willing to cooperate with the UK, which opposed the idea of an EU army when it was a member state.
Brussels and Germany have long called for member states to be stripped of their effective veto on foreign policy such as EU sanctions so that the bloc can react more quickly to geopolitical challenges.
But less influential member states are expected to resist subordinating their foreign policy to Brussels and being overruled in a qualified majority vote, which is based on population.
Just another step on its route to becoming a formal state like the USA.
Those that stay can’t complain about this. It’s what is clearly going to happen and this is just one more step along the way.
Good.
Start with Belarus
I’m quite happy for the Danish Common Security and Defence Policy opt-out right now.
So who actually gets to commad here? If this force could be deployed without the unanimous support of the member states who gets the right to send the forces in? And do they get to command the forces regardless of which nation they come from?
It doesn’t even need to be called EU force. It can be something like European Military Union. EMU wars, here we come again.
Same approach can be applied to many other things.
Stopped reading after seeing the author is James Crisp.
I mean “rapid reaction” is in the name. If you need unanimous consent it will be difficult to stay true to this.
Finally!
Bit by Bit, the EU federalises.
Start off with small numbers and soon enough you have tens of thousands.
Those who are “neutral”, won’t be viewed as that when countries retaliate against the EU. In fact, they could be the one’s that are at high risk, due to the political implications.
Besides the military purposes it could have additional value by supporting member states during (natural)disasters, as we’ve seen plenty of them in the past year.
Proposal hasn’t been released yet, and the Telegraph is a right old rag, so prepare a mountain of salt.
Good to see Brexit hasn’t dented output of Bendy Banana stories though.
5,000 troops is fucking useless, especially without heavy equipment and vehicles.
It’s a Telegraph article, gaslighting is their expertise.
Wow another misleading headline from the fucking telegraph! Amazing !
Ah, the telegraph. Thats all you need to know really.
Yes, the plan is for allowing a rapid reaction force to be eventually deployed without asking all member states first.
**But establishing such a force and the right to deploy without asking all member states in the first place would of course need unaminity of all member states.**
Makes sense. The crises will probably be over – one way or another – by the time all 27 countries have agreed to deploy
Will this mean Ireland/Austria are no longer neutral if their joint armed forces are being used without their strict permission?
So, if there is a crisis – for example – in Germany, can this new military quickly deployed there even if Germany tries to veto the action?
Misleading title
What the article actually says is that member states can abstain leaving the other counties free to proceed with military action.
So basically to be used when they’re not opposed to the military action but don’t want to take part in it. Presumably this also implies of they were opposed to the action they could still vote it down.
Why should the Telegraph care? Whatever the European union does, it no longer needs to consult what England would all would not want. For a long time England did not want a European army. I personally believe that Europe does need the capability to defend itself, because of The disputes with England, One can and should ask about the future of NATO.
The plan is being made public, it’s already been in place for years – if it hasn’t the EU has failed at geopolitics.
Either do it or don’t but don’t half arse it.
Thin end of a wedge if you ask me.
No one should be comfortable with this.
yeah, because that is a great way to increase EU popularity
If there is to be an EU military force, it cannot be bogged down by endless liberum veto. It has to have the right to act independently. Otherwise, it will either act far too slowly, or it won’t act at all as countries get in disputes about whether and how it should act.
Getting the details right so that it doesn’t act too independently or for example on the whims of some leader who may be biased towards the interests of their own member state, however, is going to take some work.
What could go wrong?
The headline intentionally makes it sound like the EU is going to do this without everyone agreeing to give it that power first. This is a proposal for the EU members to give that power to Brussels. It will be debated and I’m certain that if it passes it will require concessions to countries that don’t like the idea.
Lol.. the rabbit Brexit Telegraph. Bent bananas.
Finally
Given Uschi’s involvement and History concerning armed Forces, I look forward to the dissolution of any European Forces roughly four Years from now.
EU was a mistake
One of the key aspects of military force is not asking permission.
Eurosceptics: EU can’t punch a dent in a lukewarm stick of butter.
Also Eurosceptics: we need unanimity on everything or EU is a dictatorship.
Imagine if every little town in a country could block the whole government.
The problem of EU is that it slow, it’s divided and basically consists of autonomous countries.
These autonomous countries have leaders which can be bribed by very rich authoritarian regimes.
The EU needs an army to defend it’s external borders yes, but how to implement that is a whole other question.
37 comments
The European Union is considering controversial plans to allow the bloc to deploy a joint military force without the unanimous support of all its member states.
Removing the need for unanimity would stop a country blocking the rapid reaction force of 5,000 troops from being sent to crisis situations independently of Washington and Nato.
The plans are laid out in a document called the “Strategic Compass”.The document is the closest thing the EU could have to a military doctrine and akin to NATO’s “Strategic Concept” that sets out alliance goals.
Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign affairs chief, said, “To pretend to be just soft power, when everything is being weaponised, is certainly not enough.”
“Europe cannot afford to be a bystander in a world order that is mainly shaped by others,” a draft of the document obtained by The Telegraph, said.
Mr Borrell told a group of European newspapers smaller groups of member states could take joint action and “we cannot decide by unanimity every step of the process.”
“I am not asking for changing the rules and going to abolish the unanimity because I know that is not the best way of acting. Because to abandon your unanimity, it requires unanimity – and this is not going to happen. What I believe is that this institutional setting can be ‘flexibilised’ in order to act quicker and better,” he said.
Removing unanimity will be resisted by some member states, wary of losing the political leverage of their veto, and Eastern European countries, who fear a joint military force could undermine the military alliance.
One diplomat said the new force, “will work with unanimity, as doing otherwise would be in contradiction to the treaties.”
“It’s very legitimate to have a discussion about the desirability of unanimity in EU foreign policy, but Strategic Compass is not the place to have that discussion,” the diplomat said.
An Eastern European diplomat told the EurActiv website “unanimity needs to remain the guiding principle”.
The EU has had battlegroups of 1,500 soldiers standing by since 2007 but they have never once been used due to a lack of political and the need for unanimity.
The draft plans, which are at an early stage, suggest member states could abstain from military action to “enable willing and capable European-led coalitions”.
EU officials aim to set out how the EU treaties could allow a smaller group of member states to plan a mission together by 2023, the document said.
The EU Rapid Deployment Capacity will be able to “swiftly deploy a modular force of up to 5,000 troops, including land, air and maritime components,” the draft said.
The EU would agree “operational scenarios in 2022” and “regular live exercises will improve readiness and interoperability” from 2023.
Mr Borrell on Wednesday presented the blueprint to EU commissioners in Brussels on Wednesday. The document will be discussed at a meeting on Monday of foreign and defence ministers. Member states are planning to agree a joint document on common defence by March.
“Europe is in danger,” the EU’s foreign policy chief said in the document, “All the threats we face are intensifying and the capacity of individual member states to cope is insufficient and declining.”
The plans for the joint reaction force and a bolstered common defence will be seen by some as a stepping stone to an eventual EU army, although that remains a very distant prospect.
Donald Trump’s unpredictable presidency convinced Brussels it could not rely solely on the US as the guarantor of their security.
The chaotic US-led evacuation of Afghanistan put fresh impetus behind the plans to bolster the EU’s military capacity.
France, the EU’s major military power after Brexit, will hold the rotating presidency of the EU from January 1 and will look to use the role to drive forward the plans.
Emmanuel Macron secured Joe Biden’s backing for “a stronger and more capable European defence” that is “complementary to Nato” in talks to rebuild relations after the Auukus submarine row.
The Strategic Compass document said that the US-led NATO remained primarily responsible for Europe’s collective defence and that the EU was willing to cooperate with the UK, which opposed the idea of an EU army when it was a member state.
Brussels and Germany have long called for member states to be stripped of their effective veto on foreign policy such as EU sanctions so that the bloc can react more quickly to geopolitical challenges.
But less influential member states are expected to resist subordinating their foreign policy to Brussels and being overruled in a qualified majority vote, which is based on population.
Just another step on its route to becoming a formal state like the USA.
Those that stay can’t complain about this. It’s what is clearly going to happen and this is just one more step along the way.
Good.
Start with Belarus
I’m quite happy for the Danish Common Security and Defence Policy opt-out right now.
So who actually gets to commad here? If this force could be deployed without the unanimous support of the member states who gets the right to send the forces in? And do they get to command the forces regardless of which nation they come from?
It doesn’t even need to be called EU force. It can be something like European Military Union. EMU wars, here we come again.
Same approach can be applied to many other things.
Stopped reading after seeing the author is James Crisp.
I mean “rapid reaction” is in the name. If you need unanimous consent it will be difficult to stay true to this.
Finally!
Bit by Bit, the EU federalises.
Start off with small numbers and soon enough you have tens of thousands.
Those who are “neutral”, won’t be viewed as that when countries retaliate against the EU. In fact, they could be the one’s that are at high risk, due to the political implications.
Besides the military purposes it could have additional value by supporting member states during (natural)disasters, as we’ve seen plenty of them in the past year.
Proposal hasn’t been released yet, and the Telegraph is a right old rag, so prepare a mountain of salt.
Good to see Brexit hasn’t dented output of Bendy Banana stories though.
5,000 troops is fucking useless, especially without heavy equipment and vehicles.
It’s a Telegraph article, gaslighting is their expertise.
Wow another misleading headline from the fucking telegraph! Amazing !
Ah, the telegraph. Thats all you need to know really.
Yes, the plan is for allowing a rapid reaction force to be eventually deployed without asking all member states first.
**But establishing such a force and the right to deploy without asking all member states in the first place would of course need unaminity of all member states.**
Thats literally THE core concept of EU Law.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_conferral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_conferral)
Makes sense. The crises will probably be over – one way or another – by the time all 27 countries have agreed to deploy
Will this mean Ireland/Austria are no longer neutral if their joint armed forces are being used without their strict permission?
So, if there is a crisis – for example – in Germany, can this new military quickly deployed there even if Germany tries to veto the action?
Misleading title
What the article actually says is that member states can abstain leaving the other counties free to proceed with military action.
So basically to be used when they’re not opposed to the military action but don’t want to take part in it. Presumably this also implies of they were opposed to the action they could still vote it down.
Why should the Telegraph care? Whatever the European union does, it no longer needs to consult what England would all would not want. For a long time England did not want a European army. I personally believe that Europe does need the capability to defend itself, because of The disputes with England, One can and should ask about the future of NATO.
The plan is being made public, it’s already been in place for years – if it hasn’t the EU has failed at geopolitics.
Either do it or don’t but don’t half arse it.
Thin end of a wedge if you ask me.
No one should be comfortable with this.
yeah, because that is a great way to increase EU popularity
If there is to be an EU military force, it cannot be bogged down by endless liberum veto. It has to have the right to act independently. Otherwise, it will either act far too slowly, or it won’t act at all as countries get in disputes about whether and how it should act.
Getting the details right so that it doesn’t act too independently or for example on the whims of some leader who may be biased towards the interests of their own member state, however, is going to take some work.
What could go wrong?
The headline intentionally makes it sound like the EU is going to do this without everyone agreeing to give it that power first. This is a proposal for the EU members to give that power to Brussels. It will be debated and I’m certain that if it passes it will require concessions to countries that don’t like the idea.
Lol.. the rabbit Brexit Telegraph. Bent bananas.
Finally
Given Uschi’s involvement and History concerning armed Forces, I look forward to the dissolution of any European Forces roughly four Years from now.
EU was a mistake
One of the key aspects of military force is not asking permission.
Eurosceptics: EU can’t punch a dent in a lukewarm stick of butter.
Also Eurosceptics: we need unanimity on everything or EU is a dictatorship.
Imagine if every little town in a country could block the whole government.
The problem of EU is that it slow, it’s divided and basically consists of autonomous countries.
These autonomous countries have leaders which can be bribed by very rich authoritarian regimes.
The EU needs an army to defend it’s external borders yes, but how to implement that is a whole other question.
Based