Britannia Radio

TELEGRAPH    2.1.09
We didn't join the EU for defence reasons - we have Nato for that
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, argues that Gordon Brown is 
misleading the nation by claiming that the EU does not affect defence 
policy.

By Liam Fox

Gordon Brown was wrong when he told the House of Commons recently 
that the Lisbon Treaty "in no way affects our defence policy". At the 
start of what may be a dangerous year for global security, perhaps he 
should read it more closely.

On defence, the treaty gives the EU Commission more influence than 
ever. The debate is not about whether the treaty affects our defence 
policy but how far it pushes us from an intergovernmental policy to a 
supranational one.

The newly created High Representative of the Union for Foreign 
Affairs and Security Policy (the EU's foreign minister) will 
["will"?   would ! -cs]   also serve as a vice-president in the EU 
Commission. This in itself is bad enough, potentially blurring 
executive and civil service roles. Worse still, he will also head the 
European Defence Agency (EDA) and have a right of initiative for 
proposing EU-led military operations. The bottom line is that the EU 
will get a foothold in our defence policy for the first time.

Since, by definition, the Commission doesn't answer to any single 
member state, allowing the High Representative to simultaneously 
serve as a vice-president brings the realisation of "ever closer 
Union" in the area of defence one step closer.

The treaty requires member states "to progressively improve their 
military capabilities" - commendable, if some of our European allies 
would actually do it to fulfil their Nato obligations. At present, 
too many seem to want the insurance that Nato provides without having 
to pay the premiums.

As the treaty allows qualified majority voting in the EDA, Britain 
will now lose its national veto. The treaty also contains a mutual 
defence clause. At what point did an economic community mutate into a 
proto-defence union? And what does a mutual defence clause mean when 
neutral states such as Ireland are included?

We did not join the EU for defence purposes - we have Nato as the 
cornerstone of our defence.For the EU to have a constructive role, it 
needs to do something Nato does not do. The EU acting as a delivery 
mechanism for Nato where the US will not or cannot be involved is a 
sound idea. But duplicating Nato structures will potentially create 
competition for the same scarce resources.

The treaty threatens to undermine the defence assumptions that our 
nation have held for 60 years, and to drive a wedge between us and 
our transatlantic allies. Over time, the integrationists want an ever 
greater role in defence for the EU. This would ultimately challenge 
Nato and the role America has in our defence. This year the US will 
spend about $700 billion on defence. The UK, the EU's biggest 
spender, will spend about $60 billion.

The idea that we would risk losing the defensive umbrella of America 
and swap it for an alliance of low-spending, non-deploying and, in 
some cases, neutral countries would be crazy. If we maintain our 
current direction in the EU, that is where we may end up.

Conservatives want the EU to work in partnership with Nato. The 
provisions of the treaty move us in the wrong direction. When Gordon 
Brown tells us that the Government supports the Irish having another 
referendum, but that the British are to be denied one, his cynicism 
shows through. When he tells the Irish there are no defence 
implications it is simply untrue. When he tells the British people 
that we do not understand the treaty, and that he is in complete 
control, we need to press the stop button. Quickly.