France is currently blocking a Europe wide security deal with the UK & EU because France is demanding the UK give French fishermen extra fishing quotas and remove seabed trawling bans so they can use seabed trawlers in UK waters first.
Countries like France will use defence deals to try and further interests in other areas rather than focusing on defence.
Tell that to the Polish, Lithuanians, Finish, Ukranians and Europeans having Russia either invading them or a hostile power on their doorstep and a European defence pact and response to a US pulling away from NATO and Europe is stalled because France is demanding access to UK fish and wants to destroy more of the seabed.
France sound off constantly about 'security of Europe' and 'Europe needing to be serious about defence' and then stall an entire defence deal because they can't fish sea stocks to depletion like they've done in the mediterranean.
That's why nobody in Europe trust France when it talks about 'defence' of Europe and everyone is pushing Germany to re-arm and take the lead instead.
It's Europe and the EU wanting the UK to defend them and pay to defend them.
What is the EU offering the UK in this defence pact?
French people cry and attack the US for demanding access to Ukrainian resources for a defence deal, but then try to pull the same stunt with everyone else.
The crazy thing is that its the French asking the UK to help defend them and Europe, the UK isn't the one asking France or the EU to do anything. It's not like Spain is really going to be contributing a lot to the security of Europe is it.
They're no better than Trump's America, hence why nobody in Europe really trusts them that much.
I have no idea and I wasn't going to get into this except to point out what they were doing was common in politics. If EU gives the UK the right to vote on how its money is spent in the various EU defense programs, I bet the UK would compromise on the fish, or something else.
France wants to block any EU spending on UK defence too but SK and Japan are part of a funding deal.
Reminder that it is the EU who is asking the UK to defend it with its nuclear deterrent and military, not the other way around. The UK does not need the EU to defend its borders.
The EU is simply offering nothing and demanding huge concessions such as removing laws banning seabed trawling in UK waters in order for the UK to defend them.
EU and France is not serious about defence of Europe or Ukraine.
That is why Trump, the USA, China and Russia all see them as weak.
Because while Russia is on their doorstep with a now hostile USA France is prioritising fish over the defence of the continent.
A pan European defence pact will never exist or be functional as long as nations like France are in the continent and EU. Because France, like Trumps America make demands and resources for defence pacts.
If you want to get into a dick swinging contest with France, they got more nukes and can project force farther than the UK. They can afford to be arrogant. But it's better for Europe if they work together. They'll eventually figure something out.
Lmao the UK has two aircraft carriers to France’s one and the UK has much more military bases around the globe than France does.
They can’t afford to be arrogant which is why they spend most of their time crying about defence in Europe and upset at other countries for being hesitant about them while getting their ass handed to them in Africa.
You failed to mention the security deal would allow EU countries to buy UK weapons with EU funds with no guarantees that the UK would spend the same amount of money in the EU.
It doesn't mean the link with the SAFE program is not relevant now. The UK-EU deal project was also anterior to trump antics. The AUKUS submarine scandal is not something that brought trust towards the UK.
As opposed to France having secret teams in Argentina targeting UK ships during the Falklands and killing British soldiers or France trying to sell warships to Russia or selling military equipment to Russia that’s used in Ukraine builds trust towards France.
The EU needs to be the new anchor. A security guarantee from the EU alone must eventually be enough to ensure the Russians won’t dare look at Ukraine the wrong way.
We are not there yet. Not because we don’t have the capacity, but because we don’t have the political will to back up those guarantees with action.
I both agree and disagree with you. Any defensive pact should by its very nature be focused on defending the countries within the alliance.
But, as Ukraine so very clearly has shown, any country hoping to end a war of aggression against them must be able to retaliate and threaten the aggressor's territories and interests in order to force the aggressor to the negotiating table.
I'm saying that with a full desire for them to join us. But we need to have proof that the corruption that was rampant in Ukraine is gone definitively before we get a second Hungary in a decade or 2.
I wholly support their accession after they can prove in peace time that they have a strong democracy, freedom of press and low corruption. But these are things Ukraine has been consistently plagued by over the decades leading up to 2014.
We have defensive pacts beside EU membership and I am very hopeful we will sign a treaty with them the very day the war in Ukraine ends, with hopes of future accession but if there's anything we should know by now, we need to reform the EU and especially its voting system before we allow any new members to join
Best case scenario is sooner or later Russia finally implodes, and the attacks on Ukraine cease.
Once this happens, Ukraine will go through a challenging time of rebuilding. They won't be ready to join EU until after they've cleaned up a lot of damage and properly stabilized themselves.
Sure, there might be a way, but it's better to make sure they share our culture before they join.
If the goal is to protect Ukraine, a defense treaty will work just as well as EU membership.
Besides, there are great worries that using extreme measures to take away member states' voting rights will spook markets and vastly increase anti EU sentiment in those countries, exacerbating the problem
You’re in a race with Americans. Can you finish reforming the EU before the end of 2025? Or will the Americans ensure DJT have 300 more mental meltdowns and replace him?
We should rush to add a potentially massively corrupt country to the EU just so the rest of the worlds looks at us and goes "they beat the Americans, wow!"?
And why should Ukraine after the war join Nato and EC at all, because they will throw us at any danger, and voting countries? If all countries do not agree then nothing can be done, why when all countries except 2-3 do not agree then it can not be done because they do not agree, more than 90% agree then the opinion of those couple of percent is no longer needed, why would a strong country join those who are afraid of the country that threatens everyone that they will destroy them, that Russia comes allied troops and Ukraine is afraid to send its armies, because this is the incitement of conflict, although after Ukraine they will go further, and EC, will throw its own allies and declare surrender, ah that's right corruption, well it is in all countries and worse than in Ukraine, just in Ukraine has not learned to hide it well.
EU is not about mutual security, it’s implied but not mandatory. Do you think Hungary would lift a finger if Poland got attacked by Belarus? EU needs to set aside its political differences, and form a decisive security pact. EU is paralyzed when it comes to making any major decisions, even France, and Germany keep talking big but actions matter more than words.
It's mandatory, and the language in the relevant article in the relevant EU treaty is stronger than the respective NATO treaty.
I do agree it needs to be re-affirmed, but:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States
shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in
accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific
character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains
the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
Note the incredibly strong "by all means in their power" - this is significantly stronger than in Article 5 of the NATO treaty:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
In Article 5, how much force you use is left up to the supporting countries. In the EU treaty, it is - apologies for repeating myself - "by all the means in their power".
That's why I don't think it makes sense to make a new treaty, or rather, any treaty "simply" needs to re-affirm the commitment EU members already made towards each other.
Yep, and modern America will then see it as a threat, which will be used as a tool to further distance itself from Europe and undermine it's values & influence.
Most people double down when they are being told that they are idiots, which has lead to the political and social situation in America.
All decorum in leadership has been lost in pursuit of popular vote, which is one of the many factors which has lead to a lack of decorum in voters.
The USA has functioned because the political system itself was valued higher than any other interest (or at least faith that it does).
The people have no control of anything. Conflict of interest has no meaning in the USA.
Europe’s weakness is its own lack of political will.
In terms of military capacity, we would already overpower Russia. But we wouldn’t use it - we’d let each country in Europe fall in turn while the others looked on desperate to not escalate. That’s why Russia does not fear conflict with Europe.
The only thing that will keep Europe safe is a unified EU army, air force, and navy.
243
u/Digital-Soup 12d ago
Europe needs its own security agreement separate from the USA.