EU Combined Military Thread

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
Post Reply
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The same Ulrike seems to have at least one piece in the RUSI Whitehall Papers
... so it's not that all think tankswould be pissing into each others' tents from the outside. In this (defence policy) circus there is also the Big Top that can house shared interests. True, forms of co-operation have been an area of hot debates for decades
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Gtal
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Germany

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Gtal »

J. Tattersall wrote:
Gtal wrote: I have to say I think the UK should be paying a bit more attention to the EUs new programs in the area of defence procurement.
For one, the fact that past attempts have consistently failed has a lot to do with the UKs approach to such efforts. This is not just in terms of funding, like blocking eda budget increases, but much more so in regards to fundamental structures.
I do seem to recall many years ago a significant number of northern European, and some southern, EU member states constantly telling us how much they didn't like EDA budget proposals, initiatives for raising new HQs, cosying up to Russia, and Commission involvement in defence. When it came to the big meetings however, they all remained strangely silent and let the senior Brit do the talking. Now the UK has left they've two options, fight their own battles or give in.

What southern states? They're all for it. Itally Spain etc are onboard.
It was the Nordic and eastern european countries that allegedly felt the same way as the UK.
But maybe the truth is no one else in the EU really had a problem with more defence cooperation and the UK just made that up and indeed the UK hilariously is still saying it even though there's zero evidence for it.
J. Tattersall wrote:By the European Council on Foreign Relations, one of the most pro-integrationist/ EU federalist think-tanks there is; and which is very often highly critical of the UK (not just post- but pre-referendum).
How Britain and the EU could cooperate on defence after Brexit

The UK will have to decide how involved it wants to be in EU defence efforts. It seems likely that the country’s aim will be to have flexible structures that allow it to plug into European foreign and defence policy where doing so is in its interests.
https://ecfr.eu/article/how-britain-and ... er-brexit/
Again. ECFR, CER etc are not pro EU. They are transatlanticist lobby groups whose priority is the primacy of NATO in european defence.
Thats why they are all run by anglosaxons etc.
Just look at their brexit papers already that tells you all you need to know, both in terms of their goals and how far away from eu mainstream opinion they are.
And that they are critical of the UK and brexit makes just as much sense from a US/NATO perpective, as it entails a massive downgrade in access and control for the US.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Gtal wrote:as it entails a massive downgrade in access and control for the US.
How, may I ask?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

There used to be quite a lot of information published by the EUROPEAN UNION on EU battlegroups. Remember these are supposed to be multinational combined arms groups, with two in standby at any one time, to carry out EU military operations. A roster of these battlegroups used to be published, showing which nations were contributing, on the internet but now seemingly nothing. Anyone have any news to add to this?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The next one to be stood up:
The EU battle group will be actively on standby for the second half of 2020. The military grouping will also include personnel from Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Croatia and the Netherlands.

As it is an Irish news piece, their potted participation history is also included:
Irish Defence Forces have participated in previous EU battle groups, most recently one led by the United Kingdom in 2016. Ireland also participated in several Nordic led battle groups in 2008, 2011 and 2015.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The next one to be stood up:
The EU battle group will be actively on standby for the second half of 2020. The military grouping will also include personnel from Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Croatia and the Netherlands.

As it is an Irish news piece, their potted participation history is also included:
Irish Defence Forces have participated in previous EU battle groups, most recently one led by the United Kingdom in 2016. Ireland also participated in several Nordic led battle groups in 2008, 2011 and 2015.
Any idea what's happening from 2021 onwards, and aren't there supposed to be two on standby at any one time? The EU used to publish these details on its website.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote:might indicate things aren't going according to plan.
I only know of rumblings by framework nations that as the use of the 'tool' has not been as envisaged, perhaps they will rather direct more of those funds to their national defence (it's the same manpower, but perhaps material acquisitions have been skewed towards less relevant items). Some items that need streamlining for the Union's rapid reaction and stabilisation instrument are

- it is widely considered that the situation in Mali is a missed opportunity for the first use of EU battlegroups; instead France is negotiating bilaterally contributions to the Tabuka TF (which is a 'burden-sharing instrument' and as a coalition of the willing, draws directly from national militaries)

- the view that the reviewed ATHENA mechanism for common costs of military operations still does not take adequately into account the specificities of the battlegroup concept

- calls for a significant expansion of the common costs for rapid reaction operations, up to a full coverage of costs when battlegroups are used

- applying the ‘costs lie where they fall’ principle to the battlegroups, put on stand-by on a voluntary and rotational basis, is contrary to the principle of fair burden-sharing (so this is more widely the same point as framework nations taking on a disproportionate share of the costs. Cfr. the previous point about the actual use of BGs)

- more interoperability is needed, not only at technical level but also at procedural and conceptual levels, in particular to align rules of engagement and transfer of authority and to remove national caveats. This discussion would not be had, had the appetite for NATO out-of-area operations not diminished to a remarkable degree

- possible simplified procedures regarding deployments of battlegroups for limited periods of time, provided that certain, clearly defined and agreed preconditions are met, such as a specific request from the United Nations. Addresses the point that UN operations are often a motley collection of light infantry units, arriving piecemeal over an extended period and any commander might find him/her :) self in a situation, where there is no mobile reserve to hand, capable of relieving a component force that has got into real trouble. Past examples abound as often there is a need to cover an extensive area (thinly)

- with all of the above, encourage recurring commitments in order to avoid gaps in the battlegroup roster

- see battlegroup 'groupings' as longer-term partnerships lasting beyond the stand-by period to drive joint procurement of equipment and services and of pooling and sharing

- especially putting backin-up logistic services for EU battlegroup(s) on stand-by onto a more standing basis (contractually, if not in physical terms)

- regardless of what costs could/should be charged to the EU budget, it must not be forgotten that the battlegroups provide a specific instrument of a limited size and sustainability that is adapted to a certain number of scenarios and cannot be considered either a EU military nor a universal crisis management tool
... one could recall (but most wouldn't like to ;) ) that the initial Helsinki Headline Goal of 1999, reconfirmed by the European Council in 2008, set the objective for the EU to be capable of deploying 60 000 men in 60 days for a major operation. The Franco-British joint intervention force could be seen as a reaction (out of frustration) to nothing much happening in this respect, and even then it has taken ten years and the goal has been scaled back from 55k force to a max. 30k (all-arms, not boots on the ground. More like elements from two brigades) force.

Other than that :D it is all easy and straight-forward
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Lord Jim »

Are the same units being committed to both the EU and NATO at the same time, or are things being duplicated with one on stand by for the EU and another for NATO?

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

Lord Jim wrote:Are the same units being committed to both the EU and NATO at the same time, or are things being duplicated with one on stand by for the EU and another for NATO?
The harsh reality is that duplication is inescapable to a degree. The other issue is what is the threat faced? The threat from the Bear in the East is becoming more and more existential for many EU countries such that they're looking more towards NATO. The threat from the South, in terms of instability and terrorism, is of course still there but the extent to which a) it threatens the existence of European nation states, and b) can be successfully dealt with by military means (e.g. EU battlegroups, intervention in Mali) is a now a matter of debate. I strongly suspect that the EU's real advantage is bringing to bear non-military security tools such as aid, institutional strengthening and dialogue. Clearly that doesn't necessarily preclude a military function however the danger is that by placing emphasis on building up its military power it will strategically distract itself from what it does well, while at the same time diverting vitally needed national military resources from where they're most needed.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote: strongly suspect that the EU's real advantage is bringing to bear non-military security tools such as aid, institutional strengthening and dialogue. Clearly that doesn't necessarily preclude a military function [without placing emphasis?] however the danger is that by placing emphasis
on any such

Two different interpretations (I added the one in italics). Indeed the incoming Commission - now in place - requested a post mortem of the period 2003 to the recent 'change of guard'.

Haven't read it, but the three things needing focus/action emerging from the assessment seem to be:
" identifies three underlying and cross-cutting problemshampering performance:
(i) incompatible attitudes among Member States towardsthe use of force;
(ii) resource disincentives and barriers to timely European solidarity; and
(iii) gaps between early warning and early action."

Perhaps I should read it (and come back with an assessment of :) the assessment)
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/ ... 481_EN.pdf
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Well, the history part (from 2003 as for actions in the field) is more rigorous (in the above linked report) than the assessment of the current standing. I would say the best bits from the latter are

"The modalities of cost sharing are one of the reasons why Battle Groups are not deployed and why some CSDP actions struggle to reach their target strengths. In contrast to civilian missions, the costs of militaryoperations cannot be charged to the EU budget because of legal restrictions under Article 41(2) TEU. Under the alternative Athena mechanism, 5–15 % of the overall costs for an operation are met from the budget based on the additional contributions of Member States, but the bulk falls on participating Member States under the ‘costs lie where they fall’ principle44. This is a substantial disincentive for Member States to contribute their assets unless they have significant national interests at stake, or pivot nations or EU leaders can ‘compensate’ or in other ways induce them to commit45. The issue of compensating troop-contributing Member States is also important for making the provisions of Article 44 operational, whereby the Council can entrust a group of willing and capable states withcarrying out CSDP operations46. This could also help to alleviate with some delays in the force generation process. One way of tackling the problem is the currently discussed European Peace Facility (EPF). The proposal aims to have 35–45 % of the operational costs covered from a common budget, therefore increasing solidarity and sharing47.
[...]
A broader question is whether there is a way of tackling the current, seemingly dysfunctional, arrangementso that the political decision to launch an operation can be decoupled from force generation (as each contributing country goes through its national decision-making processes, involving varying kinds of parliamentary authorisation). A political decision in support of an operation should consider the concrete resource implications earlier and more quickly. In 2018, Civilian CSDP Compact agreed to increase the responsiveness of civilian missions by improving their size and readiness49. "

EPF and anything similar were part of the mill that the new MFF has since gone through, and I have not checked the outcome. On the defence industrial side I think e7 bn was (quite separately from this topic) the sum allocated.

Earlier in the report text the question of unintended escalation of an Op already launched was raised, as was the inadequacy of the decision process for getting a response in place. The plight of the Canadian commander in Rwanda and the Irish company (earlier) in the Congo spring to mind, though they are not (having been under the UN) mentioned in the assessment of EU ops.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Lord Jim »

Maybe the EU should look toward creating a combined Para military force, drawn from such units that already exist in France, Spain Italy, the Netherlands and so on. This would be able to provide a flexible and graduated response to developing situation be they lay and Order, Security, Disaster relief and so on both within the EU and externally. Individual countries have used their para military forces unilaterally in the past, such as Italy in Bosnia deploying the Carabinieri, and in may way they are superior for these type of missions, They have military capabilities if needed, but are more used to dealing with civilian scenarios and often do not have the negative aura that can surround military operations. This would also avoid much of the duplication with NATO.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Agree, but of the listed only the French and the Italian (units) are structured (and kitted out) for anything like that
- the French might be too busy, too, having regular and reserve troops backing them up
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Gtal
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Germany

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Gtal »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Gtal wrote:as it entails a massive downgrade in access and control for the US.
How, may I ask?
The UK has spent the last 40 years unashamedly advocating US interests inside the EU and as one of the 3 biggest powers in the EU was relatively successful at it.
Strategically It didn't always succeed, for example the UK was outmanouvered when it tried to kill off the Galileo project in it's early days, but it has succesfully obstructed any attempt to create command and control structures and any EU institutional and budgetary involvement in the area of defence.
Operationally it has aided the US espionage operations against the EU and it's Memberstate and solicited EU countries to adopt US policies like the Irak war, if it wasn't for the UK, Gemany and France might well have been able to keep the EU as a hole out of that debacle.
Even if the US wanted to do the same Poland or such, it won't be able to achieve a tenth of what the UK did.

Really, apart from generally giving US international cover/backup Britains EU membership has been the most valuable asset to curry favor in Washington.

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

Gtal wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Gtal wrote:as it entails a massive downgrade in access and control for the US.
How, may I ask?
The UK has spent the last 40 years unashamedly advocating US interests inside the EU and as one of the 3 biggest powers in the EU was relatively successful at it.
Strategically It didn't always succeed, for example the UK was outmanouvered when it tried to kill off the Galileo project in it's early days, but it has succesfully obstructed any attempt to create command and control structures and any EU institutional and budgetary involvement in the area of defence.
Operationally it has aided the US espionage operations against the EU and it's Memberstate and solicited EU countries to adopt US policies like the Irak war, if it wasn't for the UK, Gemany and France might well have been able to keep the EU as a hole out of that debacle.
Even if the US wanted to do the same Poland or such, it won't be able to achieve a tenth of what the UK did.

Really, apart from generally giving US international cover/backup Britains EU membership has been the most valuable asset to curry favor in Washington.
Interesting. However I do have to recollect that I didn't hear many EU complaints when the UK:
1) Was the second highest net contributor to the EU's General Budget, behind Germany but easy above the #3 (France) on terms of net contributions.
2) Made the St Malo declaration with France, allowing CSDP to effectively move from theory to reality.
3) Pioneered with France the concept of a European Defence Agency (EDA) in the early noughties.
4) Agreed to above inflation budget increases for the EDA for the five years up to 2010.
5) Provided a full OHQ for EU Op ATALANTA.
6) Pioneered and supported the military airworthiness function within the EDA.
7) Pioneered and implemented the concept of EU battlegroups providing disproportionate contributions to these.
8) Worked with France, then Germany and Italy to form MBDA, now a true European world leader in guided weapons.
9) Stuck with the European A400M project through thick and thin when it could just have bought American off of the shelf.
10) Worked with European partners over two decades investing in the European Meteor missile, thus giving the Western world an alternative to AMRAAM.
11) Provided strategic airlift, sea lift and heavy helicopter support to forces in Mali.
Etc. etc.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote:10) Worked with European partners over two decades investing in the European Meteor missile, thus giving the Western world an alternative to AMRAAM.
- the other one being... from China
J. Tattersall wrote:9) Stuck with the European A400M project through thick and thin when it could just have bought American off of the shelf.
- despite the folly of the president of France saying that an OTS engine from Canada could 'not possibly' be used in a European project.... abt 5 yrs wasted
J. Tattersall wrote:8) Worked with France, then Germany and Italy to form MBDA, now a true European world leader in guided weapons.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
J. Tattersall wrote:7) Pioneered and implemented the concept of EU battlegroups providing disproportionate contributions to these.
There is a blemish on this one... being generous, a one-off?

" as public opinion across most Member States had grown increasingly sceptical about military interventions following [NATO out-of-area] deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Such missions, if launched quickly enough, can significantly contribute to crisis management. An example of this is when, in little more than a month, the EU managed to launch a mission to monitor the ceasefire after the five-day Georgia/Russia war of 2008 (the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia).

Some initiatives for military operations that were discussed at the time did not gain sufficient political support. This was the case with a possible deployment of a battle group to the eastern DRC in 2008
" provide aid to civilians affected by the upsurge in violence, strongly advocated by Belgium, Spain, Finland and Sweden6."
- When the initiative was opposed by countries leading the Battle Groups on standby during that time (the UK and Germany),
- the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt went on record to say:

‘If is worth anything, it could be used. If it can’t be used, we have to question the concept of it’7... and I think that's exactly where we are today
J. Tattersall wrote:2) Made the St Malo declaration with France, allowing CSDP to effectively move from theory to reality.
... and a lot of early successes are recorded in that (linked) report
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

Oh and before I forget:

12) being a founding and continuing member of the European Air Group, hosting it inn the UK.

13) being a motor behind the transfer of the WEU's functions into the EU thus giving the EU a satellite observation capability, a defence and security think tank, an EU military staff and a strategic level EU command and control capability.

14) Working with the Commission to aid development of the EU defence procurement directive to help ensure that national defence procurement decisions weren't used to circumvent EU law.

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

Oh yes and not to forget

15) being an active participant in M. Macron's European Intervention Initiative.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote: giving the EU [...] a defence and security think tank, an EU military staff and a strategic level EU command and control capability.
What are these, esp. the latter? Now in Roda (where is that) and in Brest.
J. Tattersall wrote:participant in M. Macron's European Intervention Initiative.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: What are these, esp. the latter? Now in Roda (where is that) and in Brest.
DGEUMS is the military strategic commander for EU mil ops (not to be confused with the operational commander / OHQ which is different). The think tank is EUISS and the EU satellite centre is in Spain.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I've often walked past the Western Union (no, not :) a money transfer office) in Brux and been wondering what's going on in there these days - about a month after the Communist coup in Prague, on 17 March 1948 five countries, the UK and France plus Benelux, signed the Brussels Treaty establishing Western Union, designed to guard against any armed aggression in Europe (i.e. not including the overseas territories, like the ones in Asia that France and the NL had their troubles with at the time).

The Dir MPCC post has once been held by a British general ( the deputy's post likewise) and is double-hatted as DGEUMS. The latter role involves lateral co-operation and planning with the UN and NATO (and liaison with EU political bodies).
- Unless the MPCC is used as Operation Headquarters (OHQ), either a national OHQ offered by member states [on most occasions the framework nation for the standing BG from the rota... as we remember, for the second engagement :roll: in the DR Congo the UK and Germany... in the chair :) decided to not offer and that was that then] or the NATO Command Structure (NCS) would serve**) this purpose. In the latter instance, Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe (DSACEUR), rather than Dir MPCC, would serve as Operation Commander (OpCdr).
- So far MPCC has doubled as the OHQ only for training missions , but starting from this year any BG deployment would fall under it as well. I read this as for "anything bigger" the other two options continue to apply, right from the start or on later expansion

So (as you indicated) this thingy - plus intelligence and logs planning arms - reside in Brux, the satellite arm of intelligence in Spain and for any naval Ops the HQ is in Brest... I guess decamping from Norwood has already happened?

=======
**) I seem to remember (vaguely) that NCR was used for the sizeable (7000 at peak) deployments to the Balkans
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

As this is three-country, it could go onto the Tempest thread... or here. By AFP, today:

"Defense ministers of the three countries said they had reached a “balanced” deal on carrying out the research necessary to select the technology that will underpin the Future Combat Air System (FCAS).

French Defence Minister Florence Parly‘s office said the “Phase 1B” contracts would be worth 3.5 billion euros ($4.3 billion) between now and 2024 and would be funded and shared equally between France, Germany, and Spain.

Phase 2 will involve building a demonstrator, an early prototype aimed at testing the reliability of the jet’s cutting-edge technology."
1. No mention of 2-3 different prototypes (anymore?)
2. The total prgrm cost estimate is now e100 Bn!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by TheLoneRanger »

ho ho ho :

The French have to relent on ownership of some of their IP if the rag that is Express is to be belived :

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/14 ... any-latest

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Pseudo »

TheLoneRanger wrote:ho ho ho :

The French have to relent on ownership of some of their IP if the rag that is Express is to be belived :

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/14 ... any-latest
It seems a bit like desperate shit-stirring to me. Les Patriots are a tiny party that broke from the FN/RN when the latter started to move away from an explicitly pro-Frexit stance following the UK's vote to leave the EU.

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

Somehow I don't think this debacle would have occurred if UK had still been a member of EU.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/global ... -to-putin/

Does however indicate that on the matter of security (existential to some eastern member states) the majority aren't prepared to be pushed around.

Post Reply