EU politics: German defence minister gives game away
Wednesday 24 April 2013
An exclusive interview of German defence minister Thomas de Maizière, for the Guardian highlights an apparent inconsistency, as the minister suggests that a UK outside the European Union would "jeopardise military standing".
Ostensibly, this is an absurd assertion, as the UK would continue to participate in joint military ventures through its membership of NATO, the activities of which are increasingly duplicating EU military initiatives. Unwittingly, though, de Maizière is revealing a mindset now prevalent amongst European defence ministers, who are sharing the view offered by this article, effectively conceding that the days of NATO are numbered. With the EU Foreign Affairs council just concluded in Luxembourg, with defence ministers present, one can see the writing on the wall, as ministers grapple with plans to reactivate the battlegroup concept – effectively moribund since 2007 – prior to a major defence council in December, when we expect to see significant developments in the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy. On the other hand, with NATO operations in Afghanistan winding down, the glue that binds the North Atlantic Alliance is melting away. The United States is looking east, with North Korea currently dictating defence priorities, drawing further away from NATO and reducing its European presence. Behind the scenes, what we are also seeing is a gradual insitutional merger between the EU and NATO. So deep is the "strategic partnership" that the European components of NATO are becoming completely integrated with the EU military structures, to the point where they are inseparable. In the fullness of time – and now not very far distant – we will witness a restructuring of NATO, comprising EU elements, the non-EU European elements and the North American elements (US and Canada). But the heart of the NATO will become its 21 EU members, who will be the driving force. It is in that context that de Maizière's comments must be seen. He asserts that, "If Great Britain leaves the EU, it would be a great disappointment to us. It would weaken Nato, it would weaken the British influence within Nato. I think from a military point of view the disadvantages for Great Britain would be bigger than the advantages". De Maizière is effectively saying that full participation in NATO (as it is about to become) will be dependent on membership of the EU, the latter having engineered a reverse takeover. NATO, at a European level, becomes "EUNATO". Increasingly, we can also see the United States channelling its initiatives via the European Union, quite deliberately in an attempt to keep Britain within the EU, with the United Nations also dealing with the EU as the partner of record. All this will be (and is being) designed to convey precisely the impression de Maizière has given theGuardian. This is more that the usual FUD, and represents a structured attempt to undermine UK independence. When it gets to the stage that even military co-operation with the United States is channelled through the EUNATO complex, Britain will no longer have the option of bilateral relations with the US. The UK will be locked in to the EU, whether it likes it or not. However, what de Maizière omits to tell us is that there is provision for actors to take part in EU institutions without being members of the EU. This is typified by Norway being a participant in European Defence Agency initiatives. Thus, the UK outside the EU could still elect to take part in EU defence ventures, on an ad hoc basis, losing nothing by being outside the fold.
But then, you do not expect the "colleagues" to tell the whole story. It would spoil their game and reduce the impact of their message.
COMMENT THREAD Richard North 24/04/2013 |
Transport: the EU repeats "stupidest act"
Tuesday 23 April 2013
That was the Directive which required that a distinction be made between provision of transport services and the operation of infrastructure, with separate management and accounts for each of the two activities. The Directive also required railway undertakings and their groupings to pay for the use of railway infrastructure.
It was this Directive which led to the John Major's bodged privatisation in 1992, and the separation of the running of the railtrack from the train companies which used it, described by Simon Jenkins - asBooker later recorded - as "the stupidest act of John Major's government". With that, though, the EU had not finished. It produced additional directives and, after the publication of its "Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area" in March 2011, it followed through, culminating with the publication of its "Fourth Railway Package" in January of this year. This was aimed at "completing the Single European Railway Area to Foster European Competitiveness and Growth". It is now a sign of the times that the House of Commons Transport Committee is brought into play to comment, but not on Whitehall's plans for the railway system – we have ceded the power to determine strategic legislation on transport to the EU. Thus, we get the Committee examining and reporting on the plans of our supreme government in Brussels - in particular the fourth railway package. And it is from its report that we learn of MPs' disquiet over the EU's plans. Far from learning from its "mistakes" over the separation of infrastructure from operations management, the Commission is repeating them, seeking to increase the degree of separation. To that effect, it is proposing "common rules for a governance structure", in an attempt to make sure systems are completely separate. Having already split our system, though, these additional requirements will have relatively little impact on the UK, but there are other changes tucked away in the current "package". Not least of these is extending the powers of the European Railway Agency, changes which are also intended to speed up the introduction of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS). Little has been said of this enormously ambitious system, the implementation of which extends into 2024, about which there is a UK implementation plan but very little reliable cost information, with estimates of up to £6 billion. Unsurprisingly, there is only one mention of ERTMS in the Transport Committee report, and that under "interoperability", with a reference to the "costly" standards. These are the subject of ongoing EU legislation, dated as recently as January 2012. The devil is in the detail here, and that is not what you will find in the legacy media. In fact, apart from one report - by the BBC, and that at an incredibly superficial level (illustrated above) – the national media seems to have ignored the Transport Committee report. Thereby is illustrated the harm done by ceding power to the EU. Because strategic planning of rail systems is now an EU competence, there is scarcely any UK political input and next to no public debate. No one but a few specialists really know what is going on, and a whole tranche of government has become invisible to the media and the general public. Because the anonymous officials in Brussels are dealing with it, it is no longer our concern. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 23/04/2013 |
Wednesday, 24 April 2013
Posts
