Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Federal/Military Europe
-
15-11-2019 1:30pmJoin Date:Posts: 13683
An issue that has arisen from the Brexit debate, but is not directly related, is what the future of Europe will look like in terms of Federalisation and military co-operation.
I don't think there is any real proposal to have a Federal Europe in the same way as the USA. Although there are plans for an ever closer Europe, the structures of the E.U. aren't really designed for a US style Federation. Plus, Article 50 allows any Member State to leave at any time, something which the US constitution does not (and indeed has been a source of some contention in some US States).
What there will be, and what people often confuse with federalisation, is the allignment of taxation and spending policies. Full or even near allignment seems decades if not centuries away, but there are some things happening now or which could happen now which would be to the benefit of all. For example, clamping down on tax fraud etc would be of great benefit. Given that VAT and customs are somewhat harmonised across Europe, having them be centrally administered or reviewed for fraud, double payments etc seems like a good idea.
Similarly, with regard to health, there is huge scope for co-operation here, as all EU countries subscribe to the social democratic model of public or mostly public healthcare. The European Medicines Agency can save money instead of having 27 different Medicines Agencies authorising medicines. There could also be co-operation in the procurement of medical supplies etc. It is also not beyond the realm of possibility that where there are very rare conditions, there would be one European Centre of Excellence to deal with that specific issue, rather than each country pursuing these things in a half hearted way. An example of same could be Lymes disease or EB, where the numbers are small that no one country (well maybe Germany) could devote the resources to it that would be needed.
Ultimately, I don't want a Federal States of Europe, but I am happy for there to be such close co-operation that the benefits of such an arrangement can be obtained. I think the rhetoric about Federal Europe is overblown, and I suspect that no country in Europe wants to give up its national parliament etc. If in a hundred years time people do want to make it a Federal State, that's fine too.
One area where I think the E.U. is making a misstep in this regard is the tough stance imposed on countries rejoining i.e. if the Scottish got independence they could be vetoed by the U.K., same with Catalonia. There are separate topics on those specific cases, but in general it seems to me that Europe could try to work on a system whereby if any portion of a Member State wanted to leave, or even join, another member state, that it could be facilitiated. After all, Czech Republic and Slovakia split in a relatively straightforward way, I don't see why other countries couldn't have such an option, with the E.U. underwriting the process.
In relation to militarisation, I think I'll deal with that in another post as it is a much trickier issue.0
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 13683
In relation to militarisation of Europe, what concerns me the most is the politics of militarisation rather than any real fear of all out war etc.
A serious concern for Ireland is that we don't have an air force capable of patrolling the skies or intercepting foreign warplanes. This was shown when a Russian nuclear capable plane entered Irish airspace and the RAF had to intercept it on our behalf.
Given that the U.K. are leaving the E.U. we can no longer rely on their military support, politically we are in a difficult position because they can threaten to withdraw such support if we don't play nice, and ultimately it is not beyond the beyonds that they could threaten military intervention of their own in Ireland.
As such, Ireland has to face the reality of our military situation. We are a neutral country like Switzerland or Sweden but, unlike either of those two countries, we do not have the wherewithall to defend ourselves.
There was an interesting discussion of this on the Military forum last year:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057828882
Basically, the upshot of it is that to have even the most basic system for air defence would cost billions and would not be ready for years. Even then, it would be minimal and would not be able to withstanding any actual attack; it would merely be there for interdiction of foreign warplanes in times of peace.
This is a massive cost, given that on the one hand we are still running a deficit and on the other any increase in budget to Department of Defence would likely go towards paying wage increases (which, I understand, are long overdue).
We are thus in an uncertain world, where NATO could fall apart, where we may be obliged to assist our fellow EU Member States in the Baltic, and where there will be a large, nuclear armed, non-EU nation right on our doorstep.
I'm not in favour of military spending. Truth be told I would be happy if we could get rid of the army altogether. But our years of neglecting our own army is a potential existential threat to Ireland. Therefore, and since we won't join NATO even if it survives, we must look to the EU for mutual defence.
The militarisation of the EU comes in essentially three points:
1. Agreement to mutual defence (Lisbon brought this in in Art 42(7))
2. Common spending projects
3. Battlegroups.
We are currently engaged in the battlegroups so that seems to me the least objectionable of the three. The common spending projects will be difficult as they will either force Ireland to spend more on military spending without getting anything immediately for it or alternative increase the cost of the EU budget if it comes from EU funds itself. There is also the environmental impact of weapons testing etc.
Finally, there is mutual defence. It seems to me that we cannot on the one hand ask the French to guarantee our safety as against the UK while at the same time refusing to offer assistance to the Baltic States if they need it.
Ultimately, I see the militarisation of the E.U. not as an option, but an unfortunate reality. I think it needs to be discussed and become more public. Its really not helped by Guy Verhofstadt's comments about Empires etc. But it is something that we have to deal with.
Perhaps Ireland could, rather than being dragged along with it, take a leading role and try to build in assurances e.g. the EU will not invest in power projection weapons or projects, nor get involved in non EU peacekeeping missions, but will only be involved in mutual defence.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,326 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 16354
johnnyskeleton wrote: »In relation to militarisation of Europe, what concerns me the most is the politics of militarisation rather than any real fear of all out war etc.
A serious concern for Ireland is that we don't have an air force capable of patrolling the skies or intercepting foreign warplanes. This was shown when a Russian nuclear capable plane entered Irish airspace and the RAF had to intercept it on our behalf.
Given that the U.K. are leaving the E.U. we can no longer rely on their military support, politically we are in a difficult position because they can threaten to withdraw such support if we don't play nice, and ultimately it is not beyond the beyonds that they could threaten military intervention of their own in Ireland.
As such, Ireland has to face the reality of our military situation. We are a neutral country like Switzerland or Sweden but, unlike either of those two countries, we do not have the wherewithall to defend ourselves.
There was an interesting discussion of this on the Military forum last year:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057828882
Basically, the upshot of it is that to have even the most basic system for air defence would cost billions and would not be ready for years. Even then, it would be minimal and would not be able to withstanding any actual attack; it would merely be there for interdiction of foreign warplanes in times of peace.
This is a massive cost, given that on the one hand we are still running a deficit and on the other any increase in budget to Department of Defence would likely go towards paying wage increases (which, I understand, are long overdue).
We are thus in an uncertain world, where NATO could fall apart, where we may be obliged to assist our fellow EU Member States in the Baltic, and where there will be a large, nuclear armed, non-EU nation right on our doorstep.
I'm not in favour of military spending. Truth be told I would be happy if we could get rid of the army altogether. But our years of neglecting our own army is a potential existential threat to Ireland. Therefore, and since we won't join NATO even if it survives, we must look to the EU for mutual defence.
The militarisation of the EU comes in essentially three points:
1. Agreement to mutual defence (Lisbon brought this in in Art 42(7))
2. Common spending projects
3. Battlegroups.
We are currently engaged in the battlegroups so that seems to me the least objectionable of the three. The common spending projects will be difficult as they will either force Ireland to spend more on military spending without getting anything immediately for it or alternative increase the cost of the EU budget if it comes from EU funds itself. There is also the environmental impact of weapons testing etc.
Finally, there is mutual defence. It seems to me that we cannot on the one hand ask the French to guarantee our safety as against the UK while at the same time refusing to offer assistance to the Baltic States if they need it.
Ultimately, I see the militarisation of the E.U. not as an option, but an unfortunate reality. I think it needs to be discussed and become more public. Its really not helped by Guy Verhofstadt's comments about Empires etc. But it is something that we have to deal with.
Perhaps Ireland could, rather than being dragged along with it, take a leading role and try to build in assurances e.g. the EU will not invest in power projection weapons or projects, nor get involved in non EU peacekeeping missions, but will only be involved in mutual defence.
Same thing to the OP in regards to EU purchasing of medicine; I saw France was thinking of proposing that a list of the more common medicines had to have a EU factory as a requirement. This to ensure that it would be available as well as for quality controls; which only makes sense for a company to do if they can get orders to make it worthwhile (i.e. EU wide procurement schemes which would help leverage market size for smaller countries as well). "Hey medical company A; we want to buy medicine in bulk for 450 million people, interested?" Suddenly creating a market larger than USA with one buyer do give you a lot of negotiation power...0 -
The combined military spending of the EU is enormous. But split between 28 states there is equally enormous duplication of functions and equipment.
Theoretically a common EU defence policy may eventually utilise the potential economies of scale in common defence spending and procurement. Realistically it's a very long shot because there are 28 different sets of needs and priorities. France wants expeditionary capability to maintain it's influence over its old colonies in FrancAfrique; Germany wants a strictly defensive force with no whiff of the shameful imperialism of the past; Eastern countries may fear they cannot rely on the EU to protect them against Putin next door so like Poland they might court the US by buying fancy, expensive American-made gear ; everyone wants to maintain their military industrial base if they already have one. If you make something everyone wants in a way that doesn't excessively displace existing MIC's in customer nations, like MBDA knocking out all sorts of missiles, you can do these joint projects but other stuff can be more challenging. It's difficult to imagine a common EU rifle for example, and the risk of monopolies with excessive power and influence forming as a result of such standardisation would be enormous.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13683
Same thing to the OP in regards to EU purchasing of medicine; I saw France was thinking of proposing that a list of the more common medicines had to have a EU factory as a requirement. This to ensure that it would be available as well as for quality controls; which only makes sense for a company to do if they can get orders to make it worthwhile (i.e. EU wide procurement schemes which would help leverage market size for smaller countries as well). "Hey medical company A; we want to buy medicine in bulk for 450 million people, interested?" Suddenly creating a market larger than USA with one buyer do give you a lot of negotiation power...
Yes exactly. I'm surprised it isn't already happening. At a guess, I'd say there is political unwillingness to do such things because I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to buy stuff from an online pharmacy in Germany or Spain if it was cheaper than in Ireland, and the HSE could do likewise.
Regarding military technology, my understanding is that this also is quite political. In the 80s, the UK Germany Italy and France tried to group together to build the Eurofighter, but then France pulled out. Equally, I can't imagine that the UK will stop using those jets once they leave the EU.
Maybe the mistake was turning the European Communities into the European Union. A system whereby people could be part of different European structures as and when they like and not participate in others would be more politically pallatable sort of like an expansion of this
Maybe the E.U. should deliberately avoid any suggestion of military or common defence, and leave it solely up to a NATO style organisation.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13683
CrankyHaus wrote: »Theoretically a common EU defence policy may eventually utilise the potential economies of scale in common defence spending and procurement. Realistically it's a very long shot because there are 28 different sets of needs and priorities.France wants expeditionary capability to maintain it's influence over its old colonies in FrancAfrique; Germany wants a strictly defensive force with no whiff of the shameful imperialism of the past; Eastern countries may fear they cannot rely on the EU to protect them against Putin next door so like Poland they might court the US by buying fancy, expensive American-made gear ; everyone wants to maintain their military industrial base if they already have one. If you make something everyone wants in a way that doesn't excessively displace existing MIC's in customer nations, like MBDA knocking out all sorts of missiles, you can do these joint projects but other stuff can be more challenging. It's difficult to imagine a common EU rifle for example, and the risk of monopolies with excessive power and influence forming as a result of such standardisation would be enormous.
In truth I don't really know enough about it, but one of the things I was wondering about is the different ways that the US, China and the EU develop arms. In the US, 3 or 4 massive companies compete for contracts and, once they get them, there are usually massive budget overruns etc, like the F35 causing massive budget overruns:
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/09/04/f-35-program-update/
I would also be worried about the French as well. Their involvement in North Africa over the last decade hasn't filled me with confidence.
The thing is though, can we avoid having to make a choice between the EU and the UK? I wonder is the fact that no one really wants to invade or occupy Ireland our greatest defensive asset?0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,326 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 16354
johnnyskeleton wrote: »In truth I don't really know enough about it, but one of the things I was wondering about is the different ways that the US, China and the EU develop arms. In the US, 3 or 4 massive companies compete for contracts and, once they get them, there are usually massive budget overruns etc, like the F35 causing massive budget overruns:
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/09/04/f-35-program-update/0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13683
I don't think he overruns are a) intentional or b) limited to military contracts. The problem is with big contracts are awarded on the lowest price possible (assuming the basics are met) which means optimistic calculations is the name of the game. Issues with hitting the project costs have been an issue for every major project going back decades in every industry basically. The fundamental issue is that you can't account for the issues coming down the line but to submit a bid you need to make a perfect multiyear plan involving thousands of people and tasks that all needs to fall out exactly as predicted. It's a fallacy to think that's possible in the first place yet that's what every contract (civilian or government) basically insist is to happen.
It's true that there can be overruns in many types of contract and I'm not saying they are intentional. I suspect though that having a plurality of suppliers without centralised contracts can potentially limit overruns of this nature.
So, for example, country X trying to upgrade its fighter jets can get tenders from 4 or 5 different companies, each with different costs/benefits. The US system leads to such massive contracts that it becomes take it or leave it, and as I understand it the NATO countries had already sunk too much into the F35 to withdraw at that point.
I suppose one possible benefit of large centralised contracts is that if Ireland had to pay a part of the bill, being presented with a fixed amount that the government had to pay would make it a lot easier politically than being accused of spending money on military equipment when there are homeless children, hospital queues etc.0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »I wonder is the fact that no one really wants to invade or occupy Ireland our greatest defensive asset?
For the last century certainly, though it didn't cut it in past centuries when England (and then Britain) invaded and then faced landings here from the Spanish and French.
I have no expertise or unique insight on the broader issue of European defence integration, I'm just a random person spitballing. It is interesting what Germany has been quietly doing in the area. See the integrated formations for example : 2 Dutch Brigades integrated into German command for some time and now a Romanian and a Czech Brigade. This is a somewhat American view of it :
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/22/germany-is-quietly-building-a-european-army-under-its-command/
The Germans also cleverly made the Leopard 2 MBT the market leader and nearly the european standard by just flogging off thousands of their own on the cheap after the cold war ended and they didn't need them.
Military procurement is a notoriously dirty game. Political considerations and offsets often trump strict value for money decisions, before you even get involved in influence trading (Generals, policymakers and journalists walking into cushy numbers in arms industry funded think tanks if they say and do the right thing), fake news (eg Polish troll farm trashing F35 for a competitor https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/01/undercover-reporter-reveals-life-in-a-polish-troll-farm) and outright corruption (eg Al Yamameh deal and Tony Blair's suspension of the investigation into it). It's difficult to see any European defence policy being free of this corrupting influence.0 -
For health care, the EU top-down buerucratic model, at least in terms of R&D, is not effecient in terms of money spent and invotion compared to the private sector (ref: Taleb "Antifragile).
For militarisation, so long as NATO exists and retains its nuclear capacity then European spending on arms can be kept at a reasonable level - at least if the main threat is Russian (ref: Futter, "Politics of Nuclear Weapons")0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »Yes exactly. I'm surprised it isn't already happening. At a guess, I'd say there is political unwillingness to do such things because I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to buy stuff from an online pharmacy in Germany or Spain if it was cheaper than in Ireland, and the HSE could do likewise.
Regarding military technology, my understanding is that this also is quite political. In the 80s, the UK Germany Italy and France tried to group together to build the Eurofighter, but then France pulled out. Equally, I can't imagine that the UK will stop using those jets once they leave the EU.
Maybe the mistake was turning the European Communities into the European Union. A system whereby people could be part of different European structures as and when they like and not participate in others would be more politically pallatable sort of like an expansion of this
Maybe the E.U. should deliberately avoid any suggestion of military or common defence, and leave it solely up to a NATO style organisation.
it is partly political, partly to do with differing requirements. France pulled out of the eurofighter project because they wanted a carrier based aircraft, which no one else required at the time. This resulted in France developing the Rafale. Similarly, NFR-90 was set up in the 1980s to develop a joint Frigate for NATO, but again, differeing requirements meant this was scrapped and replaced with the French, Italians and British having a go. The UK dropped out and developed the type 45 Destroyer and the France and Italians the FREMM Frigate. Both use the Principle Anti Aircraft Missile System (PAAMS) developed by MBDA, a merger between French, British and Italian companies.
It can be done and there is no reason why it needs to be EU, or even NATO based, it just needs willingness amongst governments.
A number of European countries signed up to the F-35 Lightning project and contributed to the costs, those that didn't are buying cheaper aircraft, like the F-16. No one is considering the French Rafale though, as it is very very expensive and ha only one export order, from India and a deal that is heaped in allegations of corruption. Part of me thinks this sudden willingness from France to create an EU military is more about shifting Rafales than anything else, especially when the joint statement from Macron and Merkal followed the cancellation by Germany of their interest in buying the F35 to replace its ageing Tornado fleet.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 13683
For health care, the EU top-down buerucratic model, at least in terms of R&D, is not effecient in terms of money spent and invotion compared to the private sector (ref: Taleb "Antifragile).
True, but a surely a top down system is useful to provide funding for research into very rare illnesses that either would not normally be profitable to research, nor would they be so widespread that any one country can devote the necessary expenditure towards it?
I guess ultimately I don't know enough about it to make a call on any given research. But in terms of whether I would be in favour of a system that would allow greater EU wide research projects, yes I would support such moves towards further EU integration.For militarisation, so long as NATO exists and retains its nuclear capacity then European spending on arms can be kept at a reasonable level - at least if the main threat is Russian (ref: Futter, "Politics of Nuclear Weapons")
I think the problem is that with Trump in the White House, NATO Article 5 is no
longer as cast iron a guarantee as it once was, and with Russia showing that it likes to take bites out of former USSR States at will, leaving them in a state of constant quasi civil war/occupation, and Western Europe shows almost no appetite to resist same, the Russians must be making calculations as to whether Estonia or Latvia with their 25% odd Russian populations might be next.
I don't think there will be an all out invasion of Europe by Russia, but in order to discourage them from taking any further expansion steps into EU Candidate or even Member States, a build up of conventional weapons seems to be on the cards for much of Eastern Europe.0 -
I'm not sure I see the point, unless you're thinking expeditionary.
There are only five countries in the EU which are not in NATO: Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Cyprus and Malta, so the chances are that anything which will be going to trigger the EU's mutual defense pact is also going to trigger NATO.
https://euobserver.com/news/119894
Witney, who used to run the EU's military research branch, the European Defence Agency in Brussels, mentioned three reasons for lack of EU-level progress.
"Firstly, lack of money. Secondly, the fact everybody feels safe … and thirdly because most people in Europe don't take defence terribly seriously. The Poles do a bit, and the Brits and the French. But mostly, people are interested in what their defence budget can do for their industrial base or for regional unemployment," he said.
Another reason is Nato itself. During the Russian simulation in March, Sweden's air force did not react because it was on low alert during the Easter break. But Nato scrambled two Danish jets from a base in Lithuania.
"Nato is always there and it has the Americans on board, which is quite handy," Witney added. He noted that even if Nato's article five does not cover non-Nato-members and even if Lisbon's 42.7 is fanciful, there is an overriding "solidarity of fact," however.
He said: "Nato countries and EU countries are so dependent on one another, their interests run into each other so much … no one is going to attack Stockholm and think that British forces or other Nato forces will stand aside and watch."
With ref to Johnnyskeleton's commentary about Trump, for all his noise about threatening to leave NATO if the member states don't pony up more cash, the reality is that the US, even under Trump, is still well committed to NATO. The US Army just last month had its largest exercise in Europe since the end of the Cold War, snap-activating five times as many transport ships as normal, and involving a large number of reserve units, comparison to the 1980s era REFORGER exercises are common. Next year's will be even bigger. https://breakingdefense.com/2019/10/massive-nato-wargame-acquisitions-seek-to-shore-up-fraying-alliance/
Next spring, the Army will deploy 20,000 US-based soldiers to Europe to operate alongside 17,000 allied troops in the massive Defender-Europe 20 exercise. It will be the US Army’s largest troop movement in 25 years, spreading its forces across Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and Georgia in a test, not only of Army logistics, but the ability of US forces to link up with allies.
Defender 20 is just the latest in a series of massive, multinational exercises in Europe over the past year that emphasize how — despite international anxiety over President Trump’s mercurial policy shifts — the Pentagon is doubling down on its traditional alliances.
So the bottom line is that as long as you're NATO-compatible, you'll be able to work reasonably well. And if your focus is just on EU,you still need to be NATO compatible so that you can work with the other EU militaries which are NATO compatible. Witness, for example, the Swedish military redefining a circle in 2007 to match with the NATO standard. (From 6,300 mils to 6,400 mils) so that they can work as part of the Nordic battlegroup. Witness also how the French pulled, militarily, out of NATO in 1966 (Coming back only in 2008 or so), but given the unspoken assumption that if the Soviets invaded they would fall back in, they trained and equipped to fight as part of NATO anyway.
So, we can see that, in terms of a Europe-wide military defense, NATO is basically the default. Little infringements like a Russian bomber crossing over Donegal is something that a country needs to sort out for itself, or if you're Ireland, make an agreement with another country to do it. That just leaves expeditionary operations. What sort of expedition would the EU, as a unified group, undertake, as opposed to a coalition of forces such as we currently use? Bearing in mind that the EU is not a unified body with a common foreign policy. True unity of command such as a single force like NATO has is really only necessary in a high-intensity operation... the sort of expeditionary operation which Ireland's triple-lock would probably prohibit. In which case, would Europe's Third Infantry Division (Western Europe) really be able to operate and train effectively if they can't even guarantee that one of its brigades (or a divisional supporting unit or some such) is even going to show up for the fight?
When it comes down to multi-national development of major end items like ships, tanks, airplanes, etc, decades of history has shown that those that can afford to develop independently do so. Not so much for job protection: It is entirely possible for your domestic factory to build another nation's design: Witness Egypt building M1 Abrams, or Turkey, Belgium and the Netherlands building F-16 jets, or even the US tank using a German cannon. The British can certainly design their own helicopters, but British Army Apaches are built in Somerset. The difficulty is that each nation has their own requirements. This article explains the problems of the German/US MBT-70 tank project, for example. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a105123.pdf
Ireland can't afford expensive aircraft, it might lean to single-engined jets like F-16 or Gripen. Australia has stupidly large areas to cover on both land and water, they insisted that the redundancy provided by twin engines was mandatory and bought F/A-18s instead. The US can afford the ridiculous fuel requirements of the M1's turbine engine, Poland, not so much, the Leopard's diesel is good enough. Smaller items like ammunition, radios and fuel type, that is far easier to make common, as they are less subject to national or regional requirements. And, indeed, commonality is not uncommon in those areas. So making an EU-standard vehicle or ship likely isn't going to work either.
So what is the problem that the OP's question is trying to solve?0
Advertisement