There is no Rapid Reaction Force. Additions made to article 13th April 2009
thanks xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx a
It is strange how things turn out at times, because it was only when newspaper headlines on 1st April screamed out, “EU says our naval bases should be controlled by Brussels” and “Now all of our forces are put at Europe’s disposal” that I thought I had better check and make sure that this was not an April Fool’s Day joke.
I had, along with other so called EU ‘sceptic’s known for quite some time that this was to come and I had indeed already mentioned this in my contribution to the EU’s proposed “EU Motorway in the Seas and Oceans” consultation document.
Having read the debates in the UK Parliament on “Protection of Critical Infrastructure”, it became clear that some MP's were concerned that certain knowledge re National Security may be made available to "strangers”, “foreigners” in fact, and quite right to be concerned because who knows when friends suddenly change to becoming the enemy?
Parts of Article 17 only here,
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.
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. Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.
Which explains why our Government has altered over the years our forces and equipment to fit in with the European Union’s needs, which is not in the interests of our Country or in the safety of our forces or National Security. Now there’s a thought. WHO ratified Maastricht I wonder? Our Government says and makes sure we know that it is they that will decide whether they will cooperate and it is their national decision that will decide whether to take part, but can they now after implementation of the EU Directive? Or the Treaty ratified at Maastricht? Even without the Treaty of Lisbon? Who stands the cost of the secondment?
This “Agreement” document regarding our forces appears not to be the same as regards our involvement with NATO, where some members have not taken part in all conflicts. The Solidarity clause in the previous paragraph and article 17 from the Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on Union=signed and ratified by the Conservatives) make clear the commitment made by the Nation States. Those countries that joined the Union after Maastricht, accepted in the joining all the previous EU Treaties.
Ah Lisbon? Article 188R. The Solidarity Clause. A new article which introduces a new and wide-ranging “solidarity clause” which compels the Member states to act together in the event of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack”, which we have always done-though by asking any sovereign state first if they would like assistance.
I read in the Gibraltar Chronicle written by F Oliva dated 3.4.2009, that the, “UK WILL RESIST EU ‘MILITARY’ PLAN. Commitment of UK forces or assets, or the use of any UK-owned facilities for any EU-led operation remains on a strictly voluntary basis and will be a decision for the British government alone.
An EU-UN document adopted by the European Council 17-18 June 2004 makes clear one thing we already knew, that it is “a national responsibility and remains a national decision to assign these forces to the UN”.
Another Council of the European Union document worth looking at is ESDP/RESD “EU Military Rapid Response Concept dated 23rd Jan 2009 where on page 9 reads “On decision making, the ambition of the EU is to be able to take the decision to launch an operation within five days of the approval of the crisis Management concept by the Council. On the deployment of forces, the ambition is that the forces start implementing their mission on the ground, no later than 10 days after the EU decision to launch the operation”.
I will mention Lisbon and in particular Article 28 ‘PROVISIONS ON THE COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY’, and although it may mean jumping about a bit through all the sections in that Article, (because nothing in the Lisbon Treaty is straight forward), it is the first time the words ‘binding commitment’ and, ‘shall establish permanent structures cooperation within the Union Framework’ have been mentioned.
Click here for the full text of the UN Charter
It is strange how things turn out at times, because it was only when newspaper headlines on 1st April screamed out, “EU says our naval bases should be controlled by Brussels” and “Now all of our forces are put at Europe’s disposal” that I thought I had better check and make sure that this was not an April Fool’s Day joke.
I had, along with other so called EU ‘sceptic’s known for quite some time that this was to come and I had indeed already mentioned this in my contribution to the EU’s proposed “EU Motorway in the Seas and Oceans” consultation document.
But here was the truth being put out by our newspapers and not being denied. Strange!
Having read the debates in the UK Parliament on “Protection of Critical Infrastructure”, it became clear that some MP's were concerned that certain knowledge re National Security may be made available to "strangers”, “foreigners” in fact, and quite right to be concerned because who knows when friends suddenly change to becoming the enemy?
Some people become 'friends' to find about more things to their advantage. I find it difficult to accept or understand why any members of our Parliament would agree to anything like this, especially coming from an era when giving away such information about our National Security was putting the whole Country and the people in it, at risk and in danger and may have meant the charge of treason for which ‘death by hanging’ may have been the sentence if found ‘guilty’ in those days.
That is if they did not become the target of the people first.
Collecting information on this subject began in earnest on 9th Feb 2009 in the writing of a letter to a member of the House of Lords concerning her reply to a question about the European Rapid Reaction Force, to which part of the answer given was “There is no European Rapid Reaction Force”.
Collecting information on this subject began in earnest on 9th Feb 2009 in the writing of a letter to a member of the House of Lords concerning her reply to a question about the European Rapid Reaction Force, to which part of the answer given was “There is no European Rapid Reaction Force”.
This same question had been asked on a number of occasions but the standard answer had always included the word “Standing” even though that word had not been included in the question. “There is no such thing as a standing European Rapid Reaction Force”. This play on words really “gets to me” because the questioner never gets the opportunity to respond, and that was the reason I wrote the letter.
I already knew that my letter would be passed on to some unfortunate person to respond and so began my quest for more information ready for a reply.
I already knew that my letter would be passed on to some unfortunate person to respond and so began my quest for more information ready for a reply.
However, I found far more than I ever expected to. First came the realisation that an Agreement/Treaty had been already signed.
“Agreement between the Member States of the European Union concerning the status of military and civilian staff seconded to the institutions of the European Union, of the headquarters and forces which may be made available to the European Union in the context of the preparation and execution of tasks referred to in Article 17(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including exercises, and of the military and civilian staff of the Member States put at the disposal of the European Union to act in this context (EU SOFA) Brussels, 17 November 2003”. Which had been presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, March 2009.
To check on that,
“Agreement between the Member States of the European Union concerning the status of military and civilian staff seconded to the institutions of the European Union, of the headquarters and forces which may be made available to the European Union in the context of the preparation and execution of tasks referred to in Article 17(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including exercises, and of the military and civilian staff of the Member States put at the disposal of the European Union to act in this context (EU SOFA) Brussels, 17 November 2003”. Which had been presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, March 2009.
To check on that,
I went looking for an EU Directive or confirmation of the “Agreement” that I was sure must be there somewhere, and yes, there it was in all its glory in the Official Journal of the EU, C 321/6 dated 31.12.2003.
I would suggest the whole of Article 17 mentioned above requires a ‘good read’, although I rather expect all that read this, actually even before reading it know far more about the EU Treaties than does the present Minister for ‘Europe’, Caroline Flint.
Parts of Article 17 only here,
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.
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. Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.
Which explains why our Government has altered over the years our forces and equipment to fit in with the European Union’s needs, which is not in the interests of our Country or in the safety of our forces or National Security. Now there’s a thought. WHO ratified Maastricht I wonder? Our Government says and makes sure we know that it is they that will decide whether they will cooperate and it is their national decision that will decide whether to take part, but can they now after implementation of the EU Directive? Or the Treaty ratified at Maastricht? Even without the Treaty of Lisbon? Who stands the cost of the secondment?
This “Agreement” document regarding our forces appears not to be the same as regards our involvement with NATO, where some members have not taken part in all conflicts. The Solidarity clause in the previous paragraph and article 17 from the Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on Union=signed and ratified by the Conservatives) make clear the commitment made by the Nation States. Those countries that joined the Union after Maastricht, accepted in the joining all the previous EU Treaties.
Ah Lisbon? Article 188R. The Solidarity Clause. A new article which introduces a new and wide-ranging “solidarity clause” which compels the Member states to act together in the event of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack”, which we have always done-though by asking any sovereign state first if they would like assistance.
I read in the Gibraltar Chronicle written by F Oliva dated 3.4.2009, that the, “UK WILL RESIST EU ‘MILITARY’ PLAN. Commitment of UK forces or assets, or the use of any UK-owned facilities for any EU-led operation remains on a strictly voluntary basis and will be a decision for the British government alone.
That is MOD’s position.
This follows the European Parliament’s report that argued that naval bases in Gibraltar, Cyprus and the Falkland Islands need to be part of an EU ‘forward presence’ for securing vital trade routes.
The MOD spokesman said that the UK benefits by working alongside EU partners on crisis management missions but the UK’s policy remains that there will be no standing European army, navy or air force. “We have just one set of military forces and they don’t belong to either NATO or the EU - they belong to us.” Mmmm! Perhaps that person has not read the “Agreement” or perhaps the EU’s Motorway in the Sea?
An EU-UN document adopted by the European Council 17-18 June 2004 makes clear one thing we already knew, that it is “a national responsibility and remains a national decision to assign these forces to the UN”.
However, I look at the title at the beginning of this paragraph and it is the EU-UN, is the EU is speaking for all 27 States? Surely it should be the UK-UN when dealing with our forces? We are introduced here to the “bridging model” and the “stand by model”. “Work underway on the “Battle Group Concept” and implementation of the Headline Goal 2010 Document. Experience gained by the Member States concerned from the use of Standby High readiness Brigade (SHIRBRIG) would also be useful in assessing the modalities for EU support to the UN military crisis management”. Further on it is explained that “the standby model” as described by the UN Secretariat, would consist of an “over the horizon reserve” or an “extraction force” provided by the EU in support of a UN operation. If the UK does not use its voice, other nations will forget we ever had one.
Another Council of the European Union document worth looking at is ESDP/RESD “EU Military Rapid Response Concept dated 23rd Jan 2009 where on page 9 reads “On decision making, the ambition of the EU is to be able to take the decision to launch an operation within five days of the approval of the crisis Management concept by the Council. On the deployment of forces, the ambition is that the forces start implementing their mission on the ground, no later than 10 days after the EU decision to launch the operation”.
I will mention Lisbon and in particular Article 28 ‘PROVISIONS ON THE COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY’, and although it may mean jumping about a bit through all the sections in that Article, (because nothing in the Lisbon Treaty is straight forward), it is the first time the words ‘binding commitment’ and, ‘shall establish permanent structures cooperation within the Union Framework’ have been mentioned.
When I think that the first responsibility of our National Government is defence of this realm in which we all live and the fundamental purpose of our armed services is to protect, deter threats, protect all the people, this Country’s territories and especially all the interest therein, I cannot believe that our Minister for Europe has not read the Treaty of Lisbon. If she hasn’t as ‘Minister for Europe’ then just how many more people that voted for, helped sign and ratify that Treaty, have not read it either?
I shudder now when I think how I watched the debates on Lisbon, the shame I felt for all those ministers from both sides of that wonderful House of Commons that the likes of Churchill once made his victorious claim, that were not there for the debates yet turned out in full to vote. Perhaps the most disgraceful and treacherous deed modern people have committed.
We are not like our friends on the continent of Europe, we are always the odd one out, for we are a maritime nation, reliant on the sea for our security, it’s now diminished resources thanks to EU Regulations, maritime for economic and other purposes, even political interests and for trade. Most certainly to protect our national interest.
I shudder now when I think how I watched the debates on Lisbon, the shame I felt for all those ministers from both sides of that wonderful House of Commons that the likes of Churchill once made his victorious claim, that were not there for the debates yet turned out in full to vote. Perhaps the most disgraceful and treacherous deed modern people have committed.
We are not like our friends on the continent of Europe, we are always the odd one out, for we are a maritime nation, reliant on the sea for our security, it’s now diminished resources thanks to EU Regulations, maritime for economic and other purposes, even political interests and for trade. Most certainly to protect our national interest.
Our Royal Navy is essential to these Islands it serves and essential it remains under British Command, yet its ability to do its job is made harder and will be so because it is threatened by its ever reducing capacity. Through its reduction, Britain is made weaker, makes it more dependent on others, which sadly may be in the interests of the EU to keep us trapped inside its vicious web, though in my mind we are let down by those we voted for and contribute to their wages and vast expenses and therefore subjected to greater risk.
We already know that although we are not in the Eurogendarmerie (Treaty of Velsen) that organisation can enter this Country, Article 5 in that Treaty makes that very clear, and I am sure you have read Torquil Dick Erikson’s excellent article on the subject in the Euro Realist.
We already know that although we are not in the Eurogendarmerie (Treaty of Velsen) that organisation can enter this Country, Article 5 in that Treaty makes that very clear, and I am sure you have read Torquil Dick Erikson’s excellent article on the subject in the Euro Realist.
The EU has a Supreme Court that already overrules our Houses of Parliament yet STILL there are those in our Parliament that believe our Government is still supreme.
Soon, this Country will have its own “Supreme Court”, will our Supreme Court also overrule our Government too? I now turn to the question asked “Could the EU deploy military forces to try to stop Britain seceding? Some people also are aware of a question allegedly going round, ‘would our own forces be prepared to shoot their own people’?
I can only think this question has been raised because the Government are expecting either civil disobedience or riots. I honestly do not know who or why that question has been asked or whether it was asked just to make mischief? Whose command will our forces be under?
However, I turn to an article by Rupert Matthews: What would happen if Britain tried to leave the EU? His reasoning I place here, “The Treaty of Lisbon (aka EU Constitution) would change things if it ever comes into force.
However, I turn to an article by Rupert Matthews: What would happen if Britain tried to leave the EU? His reasoning I place here, “The Treaty of Lisbon (aka EU Constitution) would change things if it ever comes into force.
“ First, the newly created High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will also be head of 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 defence capability for the first time.
Second, Article 28b, (there it is again!) allows EU armed forces to be used to deal with any “crisis”. An event will be defined as a crisis by the Council and Commission. Article 28a allows the EU armed forces to be used to protect the strategic interests of the EU, again these are to be defined by the Council and Commission. Finally Article 188r allows armed forces to be deployed to any part of the EU without the agreement of the Government of the member state in whose territory they are deployed”.
I am aware that there is a withdrawal clause in the Lisbon Treaty, but I believe I covered that a little in the last Euro Realist. Rupert Matthews goes on to answer some points put forward by others, briefly here. How the EU is spending millions on projects that are authorised by the Lisbon Treaty, which is not yet in force, implementing parts of Lisbon. He then highlights Article 188r Point 3 drawing attention to Article 15b (1) of the Treaty on European Union where this decision has defence implications. The European Parliament shall be informed.
Taken together with the other clause he highlighted, he believes this does give the EU the right to deploy military forces as it sees fit.
Second, Article 28b, (there it is again!) allows EU armed forces to be used to deal with any “crisis”. An event will be defined as a crisis by the Council and Commission. Article 28a allows the EU armed forces to be used to protect the strategic interests of the EU, again these are to be defined by the Council and Commission. Finally Article 188r allows armed forces to be deployed to any part of the EU without the agreement of the Government of the member state in whose territory they are deployed”.
I am aware that there is a withdrawal clause in the Lisbon Treaty, but I believe I covered that a little in the last Euro Realist. Rupert Matthews goes on to answer some points put forward by others, briefly here. How the EU is spending millions on projects that are authorised by the Lisbon Treaty, which is not yet in force, implementing parts of Lisbon. He then highlights Article 188r Point 3 drawing attention to Article 15b (1) of the Treaty on European Union where this decision has defence implications. The European Parliament shall be informed.
Taken together with the other clause he highlighted, he believes this does give the EU the right to deploy military forces as it sees fit.
Whether Rupert Matthews is right or wrong, Treaties should be clear and precise to all. There should be no question of what ‘may or may not’ be. Lisbon was deliberately muddled and Governments ratified the Treaty, some without understanding it, some because they didn’t bother to read it, yet we can lose the governing of our Country, our way of life because of that Treaty.
Many lives may depend on that Treaty, it is as important as that. The Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties requires Treaties to be clear and understood. I wrote to that organisation with a copy to the UN in February 2008 on that (muddled) matter. I am still waiting for a reply.
There is no EU Rapid Response we are told, so where did the ERRF come from?
There is no EU Rapid Response we are told, so where did the ERRF come from?
The EU Battlegroup Concept (EUBGC) subsequently has been complemented by the Maritime Rapid Response Concept (MarRRC) and the Air Rapid Response Concept (AirRRC) (Ref.H). Together these three subordinate concepts have generated a range of requirements and principles that have informed this review of the EU Military Rapid Response Concept (MRRC).
The requirement for a Land Rapid Response Concept has yet to be defined. (Taken from the Council of the European Union subject EU Military Rapid Response Concept. Dated 23rd January 2009. Who pays for these secondments I wonder?
There may be no EU STANDING Army but there are many, many EU directives and instructions that refer/apply to this no STANDING army. There may be no EU STANDING Navy but the EU Navy has already set sail and is on duty re Somalia for twelve months. Anne Palmer
Treaty of Lisbon. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12007L/htm/C2007306EN.01001001.htm
Rupert Matthews: What would happen if Britain tried to leave the EU?
Council of the European Union ESDP/PESD EU Military Rapid Response Concept, 5654/09
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/apr/eu-council-military-rapid-response.pdf
Article 188R External Action
AGREEMENT Cm 7572 European Communities No 2 (2009)
Official Journal of Journal of the European Union C 321/6. 31/12 2003
http://www.army.cz/images/id_8001_9000/8438/023.pdf
EU-UN Cooperation in Military Crisis Management Operations June 2004.
EU’s Maritime Rapid Response Concept,
http://www.assembly-weu.org/documents/Lisbon%20Speeches/Intervention%20Van%20der%20Burg.pdf
EU’s Air Rapid Response concept,
http://bapex08-gb.over-blog.com/pages/Air_Rapid_Response_Concept-848066.html
Ah yes, Parliament know all about these “Concepts, too.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090205/text/90205w0006.htm
Nato and EU Rapid Response: Contradictory of Complimentary? http://se2.isn.ch/serviceengine/FileContent?serviceID=10&fileid=851DAA91-EF55-A908-E1FE-0C1041B4561D&lng=en
Questions and Answers
http://www.assembly-weu.org/en/documents/sessions_ordinaires/rpt/2007/1993.pdf
ESDP News letter
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/CEU_8_005_ESDP_7_webRes.pdf
Civil Crisis Management page on
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1346〈=en
Civilian aspects of Crisis Management
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/BackgroundJPO2008-Civilian_aspects_compressed.pdf
Page of the military Staff
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1039〈=en
Bulletin number 6 autumn/Winter
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/IMPETUS_6.pdf
Considered in Hansard
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90127-gc0001.htm#09012742000113
Correspondence with Minister-they have been busy 485 pages
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/184/184.pdf
Who signs Treaties UK/US Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdfence/107/107.pdf
1. The UK/US Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty was signed by former Prime Minister Blair and President Bush in June 2007 and published on 24 September 2007.1 The Treaty establishes a framework for defence trade cooperation between the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
2. In the UK, treaties are ratified by the Government under the Royal Prerogative, without requirement for parliamentary approval; but, by Government undertaking ("the Ponsonby rule"), treaties are laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days before ratification, to enable Parliament to consider and, if necessary, to comment on them. At our request, the Government agreed to extend the period available to Parliament to scrutinise this Treaty until 12 December 2007.
3. Since the 1990s, both Democrat and Republican Administrations have sought to reform the US arms export control system. The US Arms Export Control Act gives authority to the President to make regulations regarding the export and import of defence articles and services. The items so designated constitute the US Munitions List. The regulations are the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which cover the control of arms exports, the registration of manufacturers and exporters and the administrative procedures for obtaining licences to export.
Of Concern, and which applies to other Treaties the UK has signed and ratified is this paragraph Page ev 40. Paragraph 8.
Unusual for a treaty, this Treaty, has no time limitation on its duration, or any prescribed period of review : “(1) This Treaty shall, subject to paragraph (2), be of unlimited duration.” [see Article 21, (1)]. Further any withdrawal by the UK from the Treaty due to National Security or “extraordinary events” will still allow the USA full and open access to UK defence technology, secrets, facilities, and personnel for a period of six months (after they have been notified of such a withdrawal from the Treaty): “The Parties shall commence consultation within 30 days of the provision of the notice of intention to withdraw with the aim of allowing the continuation of this
Treaty. If, after such consultation, the notifying Party does not agree to the continuation of this Treaty, the withdrawal of the notifying Party shall take effect upon the expiry of six months from the provision of the notice of intention to withdraw”. [see Article 21, (2)]. In a “worst case scenario”, this would be more than enough time to continue abuses, if UK defence technology or secrets are stolen or sold without UK government approval; with the UK government impotent, during that six month period.
Obviously the whole document was written by the United States of America, in and for their “national interest”; none of it is in the UK “National Interest”; the interest of UK Defence Industries; or the British people.
The British people have little enough belief in the United Kingdom Parliament to defend, protect, and further, the British “National Interest” against the abuse of our sovereignty, dignity, material resources, and armed forces.
There may be no EU STANDING Army but there are many, many EU directives and instructions that refer/apply to this no STANDING army. There may be no EU STANDING Navy but the EU Navy has already set sail and is on duty re Somalia for twelve months. Anne Palmer
Treaty of Lisbon. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12007L/htm/C2007306EN.01001001.htm
Rupert Matthews: What would happen if Britain tried to leave the EU?
Council of the European Union ESDP/PESD EU Military Rapid Response Concept, 5654/09
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/apr/eu-council-military-rapid-response.pdf
Article 188R External Action
AGREEMENT Cm 7572 European Communities No 2 (2009)
Official Journal of Journal of the European Union C 321/6. 31/12 2003
http://www.army.cz/images/id_8001_9000/8438/023.pdf
EU-UN Cooperation in Military Crisis Management Operations June 2004.
EU’s Maritime Rapid Response Concept,
http://www.assembly-weu.org/documents/Lisbon%20Speeches/Intervention%20Van%20der%20Burg.pdf
EU’s Air Rapid Response concept,
http://bapex08-gb.over-blog.com/pages/Air_Rapid_Response_Concept-848066.html
Ah yes, Parliament know all about these “Concepts, too.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090205/text/90205w0006.htm
Nato and EU Rapid Response: Contradictory of Complimentary? http://se2.isn.ch/serviceengine/FileContent?serviceID=10&fileid=851DAA91-EF55-A908-E1FE-0C1041B4561D&lng=en
Questions and Answers
http://www.assembly-weu.org/en/documents/sessions_ordinaires/rpt/2007/1993.pdf
ESDP News letter
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/CEU_8_005_ESDP_7_webRes.pdf
Civil Crisis Management page on
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1346〈=en
Civilian aspects of Crisis Management
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/BackgroundJPO2008-Civilian_aspects_compressed.pdf
Page of the military Staff
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1039〈=en
Bulletin number 6 autumn/Winter
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/IMPETUS_6.pdf
Considered in Hansard
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90127-gc0001.htm#09012742000113
Correspondence with Minister-they have been busy 485 pages
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/184/184.pdf
Who signs Treaties UK/US Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdfence/107/107.pdf
1. The UK/US Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty was signed by former Prime Minister Blair and President Bush in June 2007 and published on 24 September 2007.1 The Treaty establishes a framework for defence trade cooperation between the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
2. In the UK, treaties are ratified by the Government under the Royal Prerogative, without requirement for parliamentary approval; but, by Government undertaking ("the Ponsonby rule"), treaties are laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days before ratification, to enable Parliament to consider and, if necessary, to comment on them. At our request, the Government agreed to extend the period available to Parliament to scrutinise this Treaty until 12 December 2007.
3. Since the 1990s, both Democrat and Republican Administrations have sought to reform the US arms export control system. The US Arms Export Control Act gives authority to the President to make regulations regarding the export and import of defence articles and services. The items so designated constitute the US Munitions List. The regulations are the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which cover the control of arms exports, the registration of manufacturers and exporters and the administrative procedures for obtaining licences to export.
Of Concern, and which applies to other Treaties the UK has signed and ratified is this paragraph Page ev 40. Paragraph 8.
Unusual for a treaty, this Treaty, has no time limitation on its duration, or any prescribed period of review : “(1) This Treaty shall, subject to paragraph (2), be of unlimited duration.” [see Article 21, (1)]. Further any withdrawal by the UK from the Treaty due to National Security or “extraordinary events” will still allow the USA full and open access to UK defence technology, secrets, facilities, and personnel for a period of six months (after they have been notified of such a withdrawal from the Treaty): “The Parties shall commence consultation within 30 days of the provision of the notice of intention to withdraw with the aim of allowing the continuation of this
Treaty. If, after such consultation, the notifying Party does not agree to the continuation of this Treaty, the withdrawal of the notifying Party shall take effect upon the expiry of six months from the provision of the notice of intention to withdraw”. [see Article 21, (2)]. In a “worst case scenario”, this would be more than enough time to continue abuses, if UK defence technology or secrets are stolen or sold without UK government approval; with the UK government impotent, during that six month period.
Obviously the whole document was written by the United States of America, in and for their “national interest”; none of it is in the UK “National Interest”; the interest of UK Defence Industries; or the British people.
The British people have little enough belief in the United Kingdom Parliament to defend, protect, and further, the British “National Interest” against the abuse of our sovereignty, dignity, material resources, and armed forces.
If this Treaty is allowed to pass the Defence Committee, in its present form, without rejection or without fundamental amendment: the consequence for United Kingdom Defence; the UK Defence Industries; United Kingdom “Independence and Sovereignty”; and the confidence and trust of the British people, in the Defence Committee, Parliament, and politics in general, will be harmful if not dire.
I strongly urge the Defence Committee to reject the “UK–US Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty”, for these reasons. 14 November 2007
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdfence/107/107.pdf
Article 5 NATO (No where in NATO does it compel states)
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 51
of the Charter of the United Nations
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
I strongly urge the Defence Committee to reject the “UK–US Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty”, for these reasons. 14 November 2007
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdfence/107/107.pdf
Article 5 NATO (No where in NATO does it compel states)
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 51
of the Charter of the United Nations
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Click here for the full text of the UN Charter
Posts
