(So the U.K will always have an independant military? we think not .. they're giving us smoke and mirrors methinks!) From the Ministry of Defence. 19th June 2009. Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxx p Thank you for your letter of 22 April to Baroness Taylor regards European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The Minister has asked me to reply. I must reiterate again Baroness Taylor’s response in the House of Lords on 3rd February that there is no EU Rapid Reaction Force. However, the UK continues to support the Helsinki Headline Goal that all EU member states agreed to in 1999, which calls for EU member states to be able to: “deploy within 60 days and sustain for at least one year military forces of up to 50,000 to 60,000persons capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks.” This represents an overarching target for member states’ collective level of capability, from which the EU’s capability development framework takes its lead. It does not imply the creation of a standing EU force of any kind. Any commitment to an EU-led operation is voluntary and is a decision for national Governments to make on a case by case basis. You refer to the EU Status of Forces Agreement (EU SOFA), which was signed by the UK on 17th November 2003 and will come into force when it has been ratified by all EU Member States. The necessary Statutory Orders to bring UK legislation into line with the EU SOFA’s provisions were made in April 2009 after affirmative resolution was received from both Houses following parliamentary debate in January. The EU SOFA will establish the status of foreign military and civilian personnel participating in ESDP activities. It will allow members of the armed forces of other EU Member States to be deployed on UK soil in support of the command of EU operations, as is already the case for NATO operations. It will also enable UK armed Forces when on exercise in EU Member States to enjoy the general immunities and privileges applying to domestic armed forces, with reciprocal arrangements for armed forces from those countries engaged in such exercises in the UK. One should note that the EU engages only headquarters level planning exercises and, unlike NATO, does not conduct field level military exercises. The status, privileges and immunities conferred on EU military and civilian personnel by the EU SOFA (such as the right to wear uniform or drive using licences issued by their own country) are no greater than those required under the NATO and NATO Partnership for Peace SOFAs which the UK is already a party to. The NATO SOFA effectively has primacy as the EU SOFA only comes into force once it has been ratified by all the EU Member states and only applies in so far as the status of their forces is not regulated by the NATO or NATO Partnership for Peace SOFA. You refer to the Lisbon Treaty’s references to the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. The Treaty is absolutely clear that it is for each Member State to decide whether to participate in a common defence. As the February 2008 House of Lords European Union Committee report into the Lisbon Treaty states, “a unanimous European Council decision will be necessary before the EU moves to establish a common defence. Any such decision will have to be adopted by the Member states ‘in accordance with their constitutional requirements’…as is already the case under the present Treaties,” Hence there is a double lock in which Heads of Government would first have to decide with unanimity that this is what they wanted, and then each country would have to decide this through its own constitutional arrangements. There is no question now or in the future of the EU forcing British troops to be deployed against our wishes. Ministers made clear to Parliament during detailed debate that the Lisbon Treaty does not change the voluntary nature of European Defence cooperation. The Lords EU Committee recognised this in their detailed report on the Lisbon Treaty, which concluded on defence: “The evidence is that the Lisbon Treaty has preserved the independence of the UK’s foreign and defence policy…In particular, the principle of unanimity and the search for consensus in decision-making will continue to apply to the Common Foreign and Security Policy.” Unanimity amongst the 27 EU Member States in the Council is required for the EU to undertake a particular operation, so the UK will always have a veto. Moreover, all decisions regarding whether particular member states wish to participate in an agreed ESDP operation, whether by providing troops or other assets, are for those member states to take by themselves. Each Member State then offers military of civilian assets on a voluntary basis, with the costs of their deployment “falling where they lie” with the contributing Member States. For example, in November 2008, the 27 EU Foreign Ministers unanimously authorised the launch of the Operation ATLANTA naval force to counter piracy off the coast of Somalia. This naval force is made up of individual contributions by EU Member states and is commanded by a British Rear Admiral from the Multinational Operational Headquarters at Northwood. The occasional contribution of the Royal Navy warships to the operation has been on a strictly voluntary basis and is considered carefully against our other national and multinational commitments. Operation ATLANTA is playing a valuable role in escorting World Food Program shipping and helping deter piracy. Its contribution to improving maritime security in the region directly supports our own UK foreign policy interests and has been welcomed internationally, including the United States. The Solidarity Clause reflects Member states desire to offer each other support in dealing with disasters on their territory. Including terrorist attacks. Any support would only be in response to a specific request by an affected Member State. Member States would co-ordinate such assistance among themselves in Council. It does not commit the UK to providing any specific type of assistance – this will be decided at the time and by co-ordination amongst Member States in Council. The use of military assets under the Solidarity Clause would only be as the result of an individual Member States making available such assets on a voluntary basis and in the light of other commitments at the time. I hope this letter helps to explain some of the Government’s policy positions in this area. Yours sincerely. Written (signature, which I cannot make out). However the letter is headed from Mr Jamie Brockbank, NATO & Europe Policy, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 4TH FLOOR, zone M, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB= Address Removed 22.4.2009. Dear Lady Taylor, I thank you for the letter dated 17th March, written on your behalf by Mr Jamie Brockbank (NATO and Europe Policy) regarding my query re the European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF) in which he reiterates your response that there is no European Rapid Reaction Force which leaves me very much mistaken, yet wondering where the initials ERRF come from and why questions are still being asked about the European Rapid Reaction Force in the House of Lords? Sadly no mention was made of the UK AGREEMENT/Treaty or the EU’s binding EU Directive in the Official Journal of Journal of the European Union C 321/6. 31/12 2003 with signature of the people that have signed it on behalf of the Nation States. I noticed that the date at the beginning of the Agreement, was 2003, and when printed, 2009. Noted also was that the contents of the Agreement became ‘active’ when all had signed it, yet no mention of it has been in the Press. Here is the first paragraph that meets the onlooker, “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. Here are a couple of paragraphs from Article 17 from the Treaty on European Union mentioned in the paragraph (Consolidated version Article 42). for your ease, 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. THIS may explain 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 British Forces or our National Security. 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 this EU Directive? Or the full contents of the Treaty ratified at Maastricht? Even without the Treaty of Lisbon? Who stands the cost of the secondment? Article 188R. The Solidarity Clause. A new article in ‘Lisbon’ 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, as an independent and once sovereign Nation have always done-though by asking any sovereign state first if they would like assistance. 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. Article 13 provides for members to leave. All NATO members retain their sovereignty and autonomy in defence matters. 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. Mr Brockbank implies that “We cannot deal alone with the threats that we face, which include terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction etc”. We faced a full scale war on our own for quite some time before the Americans came to our aid in World War II and it must also be remembered that “Terrorists” were also very active then. Many people died and cities destroyed in that war in the same way we played a part in destroying Iraq and I assure you there is very little difference in knowing you are going to die through a ‘siren warning’ or dying without a warning. The final result is death. Death of innocent babies, children and adults that probably had much still to give and to live for. There are many very grave Constitutional matters involved in these AGREEMENTS, especially if foreign forces, complete with arms are allowed in this Country? Even a British “standing” Army has to have permission from Parliament, via the Royal Prerogative before this can take place. We have recently witnessed the problems caused in protest marches where people were hurt. Can you imagine the problems that will arise should foreign forces, fully armed are allowed here on British soil, when the indigenous people have been denied their RIGHTS under their own constitution (Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9) How many may die then? We were shown footage of the signing of Lisbon, why haven’t the people been told about the contents of the “AGREEMENT”? No mention either that 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? I only mention these in passing because I dare say you know all about them. The people have been told there was no need of a referendum yet the constitutional implications regarding the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon are enormous. The Treaty of Lisbon should be withdrawn and put to the people in a referendum even now, before all 27 States have ratified it. There may be no EU STANDING Army but there are many, many EU directives and instructions that refer/apply to this no STANDING army, many are the photographs of all three would be forces including aircraft and navel vessels. There may be no EU STANDING Navy but the EU Navy has already set sail and is on duty re Somalia for twelve months. Here in the United Kingdom, the signing of Treaties and the sending British Troops or Navy into battle or a war zone is implemented by the Prime Minister of the day by use of the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the Crown. At no time can this Royal Prerogative be transferred to foreigners to use. With the greatest respect it is not in the gift of Government to do so, and neither is it in the gift of government to hand these responsibilities to others to use. My true and faithful Oath of Allegiance is to our Queen Elizabeth II (Crown) and through the Crown to all the people in Her Majesty’s Realm Yours faithfully, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ap Copy to Mr Jamie Brockbank, Dominic Grieve QC MP 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 UK Agreement http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/mar/eu-uk-military-staff-agreement.pdf ===================
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Posts
