Merkel voices support for Macron's proposed European defence force

Source

Angela Merkel on Sunday gave German support to French proposals for a joint European military “intervention force” that will take action in trouble spots around the world.

Britain has already backed the planned force, which will operate independently of the European Union, despite misgivings that it could be seen as a “European army”.

The force is a key element of Emmanuel Macron’s proposals to reform European defence and integrate the continent’s many militaries more closely together.

Until now German reluctance has been seen as a major obstacle, but Mrs Merkel on Sunday gave qualified support to the plans.

“I am in favor of President Macron's proposal for an intervention initiative,” the German chancellor told Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung newspaper.

“However, such an intervention force with a common military-strategic culture must fit into the structure of defense cooperation,” she added.

“European defense cooperation is very important. Of the 180 weapon systems that currently coexist in Europe, we must move to a situation like the United States, which has only about 30 weapons systems.”

The new intervention force has been touted as an opportunity to involve Britain in European defence cooperation after Brexit.

Earl Howe, the junior defence minister, said last month: “It will help to achieve what we are looking for, which is a deep and special partnership with our European colleagues in defence and security”.

Mrs Merkel said she welcomed the opportunity to involve Britain in the force. But she also stressed that the the EU’s existing defence pact and any “common military strategy” are “closely related”, which will stoke Brexiteer fears that the force could involve Britain in a European army by the back door.

Mr Macron is thought to be keen to involve Britain in future European defence cooperation as one of the continent’s most effective militaries.

But he is also pushing for the force in part because of frustrations with the slow pace of EU defence integration.

Twenty-three member states signed up to a defence cooperation pact last year after Britain dropped its opposition in light of Brexit.

But progress has been slow amid foot-dragging from several members, including Germany, where there are traditional misgivings over the role of the military, given the country’s Second World War history.

Mrs Merkel emphasised that the German armed forces would remain commanded by parliament and not the government, and “would not take part in every mission”.

FAQ | European joint defence force

Why an EU army?

The structural integration of the European Union’s armed forces has been a long-standing strategic ambition of the EU, with the latest initiative being based on the 2009 Lisbon Treaty.

Why not sooner?

The United Kingdom, Europe’s pre-eminent military power, blocked this, fearing the creation of a Europe-wide army. However, post-Brexit we have no say in the matter and the EU has pushed ahead with plans.

A resurgent Russia and the election of Donald Trump, on a platform attacking Nato, may have lent a sense of urgency to the process. The Permanent Structured Cooperation (Pesco) was initiated in 2017.

Which countries would be involved?

The UK is exempted, Denmark and Malta have opted out. All 25 other European Union members are committed. Initial plans envisaged countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland creating permanent military structures to act on behalf of the EU and for the deployment of the EU's battle groups and 18 national battalions. It could also comprise an EU military planning and operations headquarters in Brussels that would parallel Nato.

What stage is it at?

Initial plans to try and boost EU defence spending, and save money by pooling resources, include exempting defence equipment manufacturers from paying VAT, and applying EU research grants to the sector.

Anything else?

Pesco has the backing of Nato. However, France and Germany currently disagree on the project’s ultimate goal. France would like a tightly-integrated military force, ready to rapidly intervene in global trouble spots. Germany wants a broad coalition across all EU member states, building defensive unity against potential attack.

This wouldn't have happened if the clown in chief would stop allianting the allies. What benefit does the U.S have to have a strong European army? On the contrary NATO made the U.S powerful beyond belief as they still called the shots.

So care to explain how this is a bad thing? EU starts to pull its weight and not rely on Americans to lose their lives in case of a war.

But I got to laugh, neither the Germans or the French have the balls to actually defend anything, so them making a joint EU army is a joke.

This is far beyond the scope of what the EU was originally envisaged to be, though toddler in chief is making it a necessity at this point.

Well if this does come to fruition then Europe wouldn't require US troops stationed in the various bases here and the personnel living there can be sent back to the states when the bases are deemed obsolete by the nation they are within. Would reduce the US presence in Europe and also much of it's influence.

Interesting. I read up a little on it all. Opinions are all over the place. lol

I'll sleep on it.

Yeah, this is far, far beyond.

But hey, Norway make some pretty nice missile systems. Probably make a buck or two if this becomes a reality.

You really think the influence is solely based on the military presence?

No matter how this is viewed, i do not see this as a bad thing, EU has since world war 2 been on US pay, so it´s about time they start to pull their own weight.

And especially now that the UK is out and luckily on their own terms.

Actually, no this is not far beyond the EU scope.

Everything that has been happening since before the Euro was first introduced, has led to a German&French United European states with common coin, military, borders and a president.

And this is based on what?

No, but it is a big part of it. If Europe gets to the point where they don't require the strength of the US military then the Influence will diminish, possibly more so if trade deals with the US is instead shifted to China due to the economical gains.
I don't see it as a negative thing either.

Never thought I'd say this but I'm with @Jacanuk here...the more Europe distances itself from the US the better.

Just the start of the lessening of US importance in the world.

Also..........the bolded is just childish.

I think this is a very good thing just from a logistics point of view. Having 28 countries all with different weapons, training etc is horribly inefficient. I think the EU has 17 different tanks all requiring different training for each. So you cant take Italian soldiers and supply them with french tanks for example. It's ludacris.

Also, anything that can limit the US's reach on the world is a very good thing. Now we just need to replace the dollar and find another currency to buy oil in and hopefully it happens sooner rather than later

How much do you know about EU? It was a steel and coal trade union to begin with.

Yes, it was a trade union, to begin with, but it has devolved into something far worse IE, an attempt at creating a European united states.

Why do you think the UK left.

Very much agreed. Even if there won't be a European defence force, at the very least we should work closely together in term of logistics. Our efficiency amounts to only 50 percent of the US [military spending] efficiency.

Hence why I agreed to a military agreement was far from the original idea.

So is the common borders, the common currency, the president.

The EU has gone far away from the days of just a trade union, which is a very bad idea.

@Jacanuk:

What's wrong with a "United States of Europe"? Also if you are against big countries are you for the break up of the US ?

Not knocking or anything, just curious

Europe is too different to contain a "United States of Europe", Why do you think United Kingdom pulled the plug or why some countries have said no to the EU or no to the monetary union and other parts. Another thing is the democracy, If you are in Europe, ask your friends and familiy if they mention 5 of their representatives in the EU. I bet they can´t even mention 1.

And no I am not for a break up of the US (except for the secession of California) The US is created from the start by pretty much the same people.

@Jacanuk: The UK left largely due to the elderly vote though and when you look at what was promised to the brits if they voted no, it was all lies and fabrications. Who would have thought that old people would vote to have more money pumped into a money starved health service? You know, the people who need the health service the most lol

Also a lot of brits flat out didn't know there own history, I don't know how many brits who voted no pointed to London and how it's been taking over by people from Pakistan as the reason they voted no despite the EU having nothing to do with it and they themselfs imported these people in mass after the male population was devastated after WWII.

I also think it's a good thing the UK is out. They had a big input in EU laws and look how they've been running their own country, locking people up for standing outside a court room ect. I also recall reading somewhere how they want to block porn. The UK is slowly turning into a nanny state

I also think no one really knows their MEPs here simple because the EU really holds very little power so it doesn't really impact people's life's on the daily.

I also disagree with you. We're the same people. The bulk of the US is made up of Europeans. Also there is far more in common between us Europeans than there is differences

Well, if you listen to the left Stay UKérs yes they did leave mainly due to the people who could actually remember a time without the EU and also the fact that France blocked the UK for a decade from even joining, so as the famous lady once said "I do not want to be part of a club that wants me as a member" is the right stand to take for the United Kingdom, especially considering they are the biggest power in Europe.

And i do agree, many young people vote based on emotions and not actual knowledge of their own history.

Hmm, did you mean "I also think it´s not a good thing the UK is out"?

As to Europe being far more alike than different, well I have to disagree there especially considering the history of France and Germany and their "superiority complex". That is not beginning to talk about the differences between the east and west and also the north and south,

Just think about the bailout EU had to give Greece because of their nonchalant attitude.

like the US?

You do realise these are just jokes and us europeans don't actually all hate each other?

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_Yugoslavia

*Miloševic refused to agree to the plan, as he claimed that the European Community* had no right to dissolve Yugoslavia and that the plan was not in the interests of Serbs as it would divide the Serb people into four republics (Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Croatia). Carington responded by putting the issue to a vote in which all the other republics, including Montenegro under Momir Bulatovic, initially agreed to the plan that would dissolve Yugoslavia. However, after intense pressure from Serbia on Montenegro's President, Montenegro changed its position to oppose the dissolution of Yugoslavia.

Read http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-01-16/news/9201050384_1_croatia-cease-fire-european-nations

"*The European move, and follow-up actions elsewhere, are expected to put pressure on the United States to grant recognition*, even though it has been opposed to such a step at this time. The U.S. fears that recognition could endanger the current cease-fire in the war between Serbia and Croatia and cause the war to spread to Bosnia-Herzegovina."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Yugoslav_breakup

19 December 1991: Germany announces that it will recognize Croatia on January 15, 1992, with or without the rest of the European Community.

23 December 1991: Germany becomes the first major power to recognize Croatia and Slovenia as independent states

15 January 1992: The European Community recognizes Slovenia and Croatia.

Without NATO(and U.S.),Germany would have done it alone and we would have another WW1 trigger i.e. Russia would have taken on Germany as in WWI. Attacks on Poland would have brought in UK which brings US. NATO and USA kept Russia in check.

EU holds a lot of power similar to near federal government e.g.

1. EU (European Commission) controls external border policies and can impose penalties on recalcitrant member countries. This is also applicable on fisheries. Unlike EU, Australian federal government deferred local fisheries issues to the member state level.

EU (European Commission) controls trade policies within the EU's territory.

EU (European Commission) controls internet policies e.g. General Data Protection Regulation.

European Parliament is nearly useless.

2. EuroZone members are under EU's ECB (European Central Bank)'s policies. The Greeks has to bend over with ECB being the paramount entity..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutions_of_the_European_Union

The Commission has a virtual monopoly on the introduction of legislation into the legislative process, a power which gives the Commission considerable influence as an agenda setter for the EU as a whole.^[1]

-----

USA can be considered to be "European Union" since it's majority of it's population base was from UK, Ireland, Germany, Italy and Spain. The two Germanic population base from UK and Germany dominates US.

Trump vs Merkel in loggerheads are the two Germanic individuals fighting each other.

This is breaking another barrier...