Britain and France sign landmark 50-year defence deal | Politics | guardian.co.uk

Quote:

Britain and France today signed a landmark 50-year treaty on defence and security that envisages the joint use of aircraft carriers, a 10,000-strong joint expeditionary force and unprecedented new levels of co-operation over nuclear missiles. The deal, signed in London by David Cameron and the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has in part been forced on the two countries as they struggle with tightening defence budgets, but also reflects a level of mutual trust not seen for decades. At a joint press conference at Lancaster House, Cameron repeatedly stressed that the agreement strengthened British sovereignty as he said it opened a new chapter in Anglo-French relations. Seeking to defend himself from a Eurosceptic assault, with one Tory MP describing the French as "duplicitous", Cameron stressed the treaties would not weaken British sovereignty and did not amount to a sharing of the UK's nuclear deterrent. He said: "Britain and France will be sovereign nations able to deploy our forces independently and in our national interest when we choose to do so. "The two largest defence budgets in Europe are recognising that if we come together and work together we increase not just our joint capacity, but crucially we increase our own individual sovereign capacity so that we can do more things alone as well as together." Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron joke after signing the Anglo-French defence treaty today. Photograph: Leon Neal Pool/EPA Sarkozy hailed the agreement in even more enthusiastic terms: "This is a decision that is unprecedented and it shows a level of co-operation and confidence between our two nations that is unique in history." Cameron stressed that Britain would retain he ability to fight alone, but pointed out that British troops had in practice only operated independently twice in the past 30 years – in Sierra Leone and in the Falklands. The bulk of UK military activity was undertaken in co-operation with allies, and he said anything that strengthened overall UK military capacity would be welcomed by Brtain's international partners, including the US. He described the agreement as a "practical, hard-headed agreement between two sovereign countries". The prime minister said the agreement would reduce development costs, eliminate duplication and align research programmes. Britain and France were natural partners as the third and fourth largest forces in the world, he said, calling France a logical sensible and practical partner. "It is the start of something new," Cameron said, adding: "The treaty is based on pragmatism, not just sentiment." Cameron disclosed that the two treaties would: • Create a joint expeditionary task force in which around 5,000 UK and French troops from all three services will train and exercise together from 2011. The force will be able to launch high-intensity peacekeeping, rescue or combat missions. • Co-operate on an integrated strike force ensuring aircraft can operate off both the planned British carrier and the French carrier Charles de Gaulle. Operations would start with training missions, and would eventually provide cover when one nation's carrier was in dock for maintenance. Britain will modify its future aircraft carrier to make it compatible with French aircraft. There will also be new co-operation on procurement, including a joint common support plan for the future fleets of A400m transport aircraft being brought by both countries. The two sides also agreed to work together over the next 10 years on unmanned drone aircraft, as well as on nuclear submarine technology. In a separate agreement that Cameron said would save hundreds of millions of pounds, the two countries agreed to co-operate on nuclear safety by building a jointly run facility at Valduc, near Dijon, that will model performance of UK and French nuclear warheads and materials in co-operation with a joint Technology Development Centre at Aldermaston. The French laboratory will host British defence scientists to carry out tests on their country's nuclear warhead stockpile, soon to be cut to 120. In return, French officials will be stationed at the UK facility to work on nuclear test technology. Cameron said "there was no more sensitive issue on which two countries could co-operate than nuclear technology". Further details will be given by the defence secretary this afternoon in a Commons statement demanded by Labour and granted by the Speaker. Sarkozy insisted France was not abandoning its national sovereignty, but throughout struck a more enthusiastic, visionary tone about the agreement than Cameron. He said: "In France sovereignty is as touchy an issue as it is in Britain. Together we will be stronger. Together we will do better. Together we will better protect our values. We cannot solve problems of 21st century with the ideas of the 20th century." He added: "It is fashionable to say that Europe lacks strategic vision, but Britain and France have pooled their sovereignty." Sarkozy said he could not envisage a crisis so grave that France and Britain would not be willing to undertake joint military actions. He said if Britain needed to send out an aircraft carrier, "France would not sit there with its arms crossed saying 'it is none of our business'." Sarkozy stressed that Britain and France had shared values and said he had always favoured closer co-operation between the two countries. "All my political life I have argued in favour of a rapprochement between London and Paris. It has been a constant commitment since I got involved in politics. "Sovereignty does not mean isolation. When you are isolated you are no longer sovereign. You are exposed." In a sign of the political debate ahead, the Conservative former defence select committee member Bernard Jenkin warned: "Tactical co-operation, yes. Strategic fusion, no. We need to recognise that France has never and is never likely to share the same strategic priorities as the UK. "There is a long track record of duplicity on the French part. When it comes to dealing with allies, we should never be under any illusion. The French act in what they see as their strategic interests." Jenkin questioned whether France would make an aircraft carrier available for an operation like the relief of the Falklands, and warned that the US might "cut off" intelligence co-operation with the UK if it appeared secrets were being shared with Paris. But Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, told the BBC: "The French believe we are duplicitous as well, but I think this is terribly out of date."

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

"There is a long track record of duplicity on the French part".

Err..... Dude, look who's talking...

Seems like a decent strategy. Now, it'll be down to execution and making sure everyone thinks they're getting a fair deal or even as good a deal as the other partner...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Yes, I did enjoy watching the Torygraph splutter about this this morning.

Various interesting bits and bobs:

1. I wonder what'll happen if we end up with another Iraq-style situation? Sure, you might say that Britain has learnt its lesson, but everyone always thinks that their exception is exceptional. Equally, will France want Brits involved in all its touchy little post-colonial African adventures. I guess that any dissent equals a veto in one of these alliances.
2. Like the sharing aircraft carriers thing a lot, except in that I'd never heard of the plan until today and I had a concours question a few weeks back on "can France afford another aircraft carrier?" and used it to make the case for arrangements based around the Mistral. Oh well.
3. Multi-speed European defense Union? Yes please.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

I wonder what'll happen if we end up with another Iraq-style situation? Sure, you might say that Britain has learnt its lesson, but everyone always thinks that their exception is exceptional. Equally, will France want Brits involved in all its touchy little post-colonial African adventures. I guess that any dissent equals a veto in one of these alliances.

Well, it's not a fusion of armed forces so, as they said, each country is still free to involve itself in its own little colonial conflicts...

Quote:

Multi-speed European defense Union? Yes please.

In general, I like the idea of a variety of commitment levels within the Union - That allows those of the countries which want an "ever closer union" to get on with it while countries that think it ought to be nothing more than a free trade zone can have their way too. But I don't think that a "menu" of options such "get into the Euro", "get a common defense", "get an harmonised legal system"... is necessarily good. Too many various different levels of agreement to run at once between too many different players...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

I wouldn't be in favour of a harmonised legal system. Even in the US where they're keen on checks and balances and accountability (unlike in the EU) they leave that mostly at state level.

On the other hand I think that any defense unification would be an improvement on (simplification of) what we've got now. For it to be efficient it'd have to work like the ESA rather than the EU proper, but I think that's a detail. It's not like the community system is a religion from which heretics must be barred or anything.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

As I said elsewhere, I certainly don't approve of the whole "no two-speed Europe" mantra. Effectively, we have multi-speed Europe already. So let's just formalise it.

Besides which, there are genuine divergences of views on what the EU ought to be. I mean, I want a federal union. That's not something that's going to fly well in Toryland. And that's fine. If they don't want to join in, I don't want them in either... The EU should be geared to handle both views and shades in between. But "I want a fully cooperative armed force while not being in the Euro and, oh, a common border regime to deal with immigration but fuck that budget harmonisation" isn't viable, IMO...

And what's the problem with harmonised legal system? In my mind, it's a question of level playing field for companies. If you got a product and you need 15 different legal advisors and notices and specifications, it kills economies of scale and knock down productivity. That's one of the reason the US tend to do better than smaller european countries in some comparisons...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Quote:

But "I want a fully cooperative armed force while not being in the Euro and, oh, a common border regime to deal with immigration but fuck that budget harmonisation" isn't viable, IMO...

Why not?

Quote:

And what's the problem with harmonised legal system? In my mind, it's a question of level playing field for companies. If you got a product and you need 15 different legal advisors and notices and specifications, it kills economies of scale and knock down productivity. That's one of the reason the US tend to do better than smaller european countries in some comparisons...

Oh, commercial law? Well okay we could do better, but a harmonised legal system is basically what we've got for about 75% of products (IIRC), and there's more and more regulation that uses the "maximum harmonisation" technique, so I think we're doing pretty well, considering.

I really meant penal law (and some bits of civil law - damages, divorce etc.). So far the harmonisation that we've got is horrible. The EU arrest warrant, for instance, effectively reduces judicial safeguards throughout the union to those of the worst member (ie. however awesome your own state's failsafes are in terms of rights of the accused, it doesn't matter because you can still get extradited on trumped up charges to spend the rest of your life being bummed in a Bulgarian jail). For it to work all members would have to have equally trustworthy judicial systems for a start, which, however much we may like to pretend, just isn't the case. And for another thing there are too many holes in the procedure as it currently stands - even in extradition proceedings between two reasonably liberal countries you can still find yourself deprived of the protection that you'd normally get just by virtue of having a case that falls between two jurisdictions.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

Why not?

Seems like a recipe for quagmires and quangos-like inefficency. Not that the EU-as-is is remotely efficient either but...

I mean, so France would have to manage basically 15 different, specific, levels of bilateral relationships, one for each country within the Union. Simpler to just define roughly 3 level of commitments and with countries having the opportunity to move from 'the sphere' to 'the core' according to their wishes and capabilities.

Quote:

Oh, commercial law? Well okay we could do better, but a harmonised legal system is basically what we've got for about 75% of products (IIRC), and there's more and more regulation that uses the "maximum harmonisation" technique, so I think we're doing pretty well, considering.

Possibly. I am no expert. But, basically, that was what I meant.

Quote:

I really meant penal law (and some bits of civil law - damages, divorce etc.). So far the harmonisation that we've got is horrible. The EU arrest warrant, for instance, effectively reduces judicial safeguards throughout the union to those of the worst member (ie. however awesome your own state's failsafes are in terms of rights of the accused, it doesn't matter because you can still get extradited on trumped up charges to spend the rest of your life being bummed in a Bulgarian jail). For it to work all members would have to have equally trustworthy judicial systems for a start, which, however much we may like to pretend, just isn't the case.

Well, exactly. I found that the drive to absorb Eastern/Central European countries so fast was a total joke. We had to actually barr them from a lot of things, iirc. I can't remember the details but I don't think Polish farmers get the same subsidies as French ones and Polish people aren't free to move to France as they please.

Here, the idea of 'sphere' vs. 'core' makes a lot more sense. And, yeah, I think harmonisation of that kind of penal/civil law ought to take place between civilised western european countries only (those that wants it, of course) - i.e. the core.

Quote:

And for another thing there are too many holes in the procedure as it currently stands - even in extradition proceedings between two reasonably liberal countries you can still find yourself deprived of the protection that you'd normally get just by virtue of having a case that falls between two jurisdictions.

I am not an expert enough to comment. If you say that's a problem, fine but I would suspect that greater harmonisation would be the answer. I mean, if History had played out differently, France and GB would be one entity. It ought to be possible to replicate the result of that History-that-didn't-happen without massive headaches.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Quote:

Seems like a recipe for quagmires and quangos-like inefficency. Not that the EU-as-is is remotely efficient either but... I mean, so France would have to manage basically 15 different, specific, levels of bilateral relationships, one for each country within the Union. Simpler to just define roughly 3 level of commitments and with countries having the opportunity to move from 'the sphere' to 'the core' according to their wishes and capabilities.

27, shurely? :P

Well yes it would, but that's what we employ diplomats for, after all. It's still no more complicated than things would be without the EU.

Having a standard set of rules for everyone would be easier if everyone agreed, but in actual fact its way, way more complicated than an adaptable ESA-style framework. You usually just end up with something that everyone dislikes a little but which is sufficiently insipid that they're just about willing to agree to it. So yeah, in a perfect world I'd want a community system bringing everything together under one roof, in reality I think that if you're too fixated on that then you're going to miss out on opportunities for deeper cooperation among a more limited group of states.

Quote:

Well, exactly. I found that the drive to absorb Eastern/Central European countries so fast was a total joke. We had to actually barr them from a lot of things, iirc. I can't remember the details but I don't think Polish farmers get the same subsidies as French ones and Polish people aren't free to move to France as they please. Here, the idea of 'sphere' vs. 'core' makes a lot more sense. And, yeah, I think harmonisation of that kind of penal/civil law ought to take place between civilised western european countries only (those that wants it, of course) - i.e. the core. I am not an expert enough to comment. If you say that's a problem, fine but I would suspect that greater harmonisation would be the answer. I mean, if History had played out differently, France and GB would be one entity. It ought to be possible to replicate the result of that History-that-didn't-happen without massive headaches.

You'd basically have to do it all in one go if you wanted true integration - every member country's legal system would have to be wiped out and replaced with a shared one, with a final, central institution to judge in cassation. It'd be an insanely huge amount of work and I can't see all the states ever agreeing to it.

I'd rather have a US-style system where states have their own laws (and make their own extradition rules), but there's a shared Supreme Court.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

27, shurely? :P

Right, 27. I mean, wtf? At that point, why even bother calling it a "union" rather than "a pub for nations vaguely situated between the Oural and the Atlantic"...

Quote:

Well yes it would, but that's what we employ diplomats for, after all.

The least of them, the better...

Quote:

Having a standard set of rules for everyone would be easier if everyone agreed, but in actual fact its way, way more complicated than an adaptable ESA-style framework. You usually just end up with something that everyone dislikes a little but which is sufficiently insipid that they're just about willing to agree to it. So yeah, in a perfect world I'd want a community system bringing everything together under one roof, in reality I think that if you're too fixated on that then you're going to miss out on opportunities for deeper cooperation among a more limited group of states.

Hence my point about 'core' vs. 'sphere'. AFAICT, there are only 5-6 countries that seem to want an 'ever closer union'. Personally, I leave Italy out no matter what they say. They're too corrupt and Berlusconi is too stupid (and Italians keep re-electing him so...) for them to be a good fit with the rest of the "France+Benelux+Holland+Germany" core entity... With the rest of Europe, more 'limited' forms of cooperation may be set up (I put limited in comas because a common currency is a pretty involved form of limited cooperation).

Quote:

You'd basically have to do it all in one go if you wanted true integration - every member country's legal system would have to be wiped out and replaced with a shared one, with a final, central institution to judge in cassation. It'd be an insanely huge amount of work and I can't see all the states ever agreeing to it.

What about those 5 states I mentioned?

Quote:

I'd rather have a US-style system where states have their own laws (and make their own extradition rules), but there's a shared Supreme Court.

Leaves you open to shopping around for a favourable legal system, does it not?

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.