British defence secretary backs French plan for EU military

[Darsh]

Britain's new Defence Secretary John Hutton expressed support for French plans to strengthen European defence capacity, saying: "If we can support it, we should" in an interview published Sunday.

Hutton, who only got the job following a reshuffle of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Cabinet this month, said it was "perfectly sensible" to work with European Union allies on such issues.

He went on to describe "EU haters" as "pathetic" in an interview with The Sunday Times newspaper.

France, which currently holds the rotating EU presidency, wants to ensure that Europe can stand alone militarily if it needs to. The aim is to be able to deploy 60,000 troops with air and naval support within 60 days by 2018.

But one of its main goals -- the establishment of a real EU military headquarters in Brussels -- has been blocked by Britain, which is keen not to double up on work being done by the NATO military alliance.

Experts say the plans would need backing from Britain which, alongside France, has the EU's biggest defence spend. Hutton's comments suggest a softening of attitude.

"I think we've got to be pragmatic about those things," Hutton told The Sunday Times.

"Where it can help, we should be part of it... France is one of our closest allies militarily. The French believe very strongly in this type of role.

"If we can support it, we should."

He also launched an attack on the Eurosceptic strain in some parts of British politics, saying: "I'm not one of those EU haters (who think) anything to do with the EU must by definition be terrible.

"There's plenty of them around. I think frankly those kind of views are pathetic."

He added: "Britain's role in the world is to be part of those alliances...

"People who don't understand that don't understand the nature of the modern world."

Hutton, who replaced Des Browne, is seen as being on the right of the ruling Labour Party and has reportedly had a strained relationship with Brown in the past.

http://www.france24.com/en/20081026-...ce&navi=EUROPE

Go Britain.

[Exarch]

does this mean the EU gets its own real standing army?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Darsh, that is like twenty thousand miles from the British defence secretary backing a EU military.

[Erik]

"There's plenty of them around. I think frankly those kind of views are pathetic."

He added: "Britain's role in the world is to be part of those alliances...

"People who don't understand that don't understand the nature of the modern world."

If he said that here, I would consider this a troll: "Your're pathetic, and if you disagree with me you don't understand the world". - yeah, very good arguments, John.

[Exarch]

hurry up, EU
make an army
go to war
u get to be a superpower now!!

against pirates

[Каие]

But one of its main goals -- the establishment of a real EU military headquarters in Brussels -- has been blocked by Britain, which is keen not to double up on work being done by the NATO military alliance.

No Darsh, it seems not.

[KaerMorhen]

Only if GBR gets along with France then EU Army will have a chance but if makes a difference.

[Pious Agnost]

I was under the impression that Germany had a higher millitary expenditure than either France or GB :hmmm:

[Viking Prince]

I was under the impression that Germany had a higher millitary expenditure than either France or GB :hmmm:

Good point. I wonder who will bear the burden if there ever is a combined force. Best guess -- Germany. Besides what really is a combined force but a British regiment, a French regiment, and two German regiments? The moment of political disagreement they all will revert to NATO regiments. Better to take a more serious look at combining units within NATO and deploy the units as a "EU" force when not performing a NATO operation. Semantics perhaps, but more usefule.

[Rapax]

I was under the impression that Germany had a higher millitary expenditure than either France or GB :hmmm:

Nope, neither in terms of GDP nor in actual money spent. We're third behind both.

[Pious Agnost]

Nope, neither in terms of GDP nor in actual money spent. We're third behind both.

I suppose should there be an E.U combined force they'll just get all their equipment from Germany then

[Sphere]

The moment of political disagreement they all will revert to NATO regiments. Better to take a more serious look at combining units within NATO and deploy the units as a "EU" force when not performing a NATO operation. Semantics perhaps, but more usefule.

The problem with NATO is it requires American assistance militarily and diplomatically. EU nations are generally not set up to operate large expeditionary forces, at least not together. And there are certain area's in the world the EU is more willing to tackle than the US, mainly Africa and the Balkans.

So I don't buy this argument that an EU army isn't needed because of NATO. Europe should be using its armed forces in the ways it sees fit, not just what the US will agree too, and provide logistics for.

[King Edward III]

They're not at it again!

[Richard]

Sounds more like a European NATO than an actual EU military. There aren't going to be EU military bases, with people who enroll in Britain getting send off to train at EU-run bases in France or anything. They'll still be British military, or French, or whoever, not 'EU'. This thing sounds more like a way to coordinate all the separate militaries a la NATO.