For the record, on 'Does #PESCO equal an EU army?':
PESCO is about increasing interoperability and industrial competitiveness in Europe, and decreasing the number of different weapon systems (through financial incentives for PESCO members to jointly develop capabilities). 1/x
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @geareddev view original on Twitter
Military capacities developed within PESCO remain in the hands of member-states that can also make them available in other contexts such as through NATO or the UN. 2/x
Governments do not want to give up their sovereign national prerogative to deploy troops. What makes sense though, is to train and exercise them together to increase interoperability (in fact, NATO does this too, see Framework Nation Concept) 3/x
PESCO is a member-state - led initiative. Only PESCO members get a vote on overall policy direction and assessment mechanism, and decisions are taken by unanimity. Participation remains voluntary. 4/x
Can #PESCO deliver? That's another thread for another day. But don't let the EU army monster distract you from the real challenges of European defence integration. 6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
.@CommonsDefence has published its report on the UK government's proposals for a future security partnership with the European Union, based in part on oral evidence I gave at the end of last year: publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cm…
I am more pessimistic than I was then: the Defence Fund proposals are not leaving much room for third country involvement, and the Galileo negotiations have set a problematic precedent for the restrictive view the EU takes on the UK as a third country in defence.
Galileo was a perfect storm - bc of ESA contract deadlines negotiations were rushed, member-states not very involved, political pressure in the UK very high, messaging at times misleading. Hopefully negotiations can recover from fall-out, perhaps even take this as cautionary tale
Slides are split into 'internal security' and 'external security', with cross cutting issues data/information exchange; governance; UK<->Eu secondees.
I'll refer you to my colleagues @CaminoMortera@CER_IanBond for JHA &foreign policy questions; a few points on defence from me:
Spoiler: none of this should be particularly surprising, especially if - shameless self-promotion - you've read my recent policy brief on the topic: cer.eu/publications/a….
This is an interesting Brexit story, important to clarify that there are two different issues at stake here (thread):
1) UK industrial interests: The Commission through the European Space Agency (ESA), is currently managing a competition for a set of Galileo contracts.
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @ftbrussels view original on Twitter
(Galileo is Europe's own global navigation satellite system, designed as a competitor to the United States’ GPS, Russia’s GLONASS, and China’s Beidou. Plan is for Galileo to be fully operational 2020).
Until now, a British company has been the contractor for Galileo’s payload electronics. However, because under current transition arrangements the UK cannot be granted access to sensitive EU-only information, the EU has introduced a break clause ->