Read more: Brexit would not damage UK security
If there’s a campaign equivalent of the silly season, for me it reached a peak when one of the papers carried the headline: “EU army plans kept secret from voters” last month. Even the article itself showed this was complete nonsense. There was no such plan, nothing was being kept secret, and that none of it had anything to do with a so-called “EU army.”
That didn’t stop the Brexiteers though. Conservative MP Liam Fox suggested that the EU was trying to “weaken NATO and undermine our security,” echoing what has become a depressingly familiar refrain in recent weeks. Of course, the “Leave” campaign concentrates on such issues because they do not want to talk about the economy, yet it is precisely the economic impact of Brexit on our nation’s defences that should worry them the most.
The government has committed to a defence budget that is based on a percentage of GDP—two per cent, to be exact. This would buy a great deal less in a post-Brexit economy than it does today.
In a worst-case scenario, cuts could be imposed on a scale last seen in 2010, when the Strategic Defence and Security Review enacted an 8 per cent real-terms cut to the Ministry of Defence’s budget which led to a 20-30 per cent reduction in our military capabilities according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Those who would have us leave the EU also argue that it does not make us safer. They say NATO is the only alliance that counts when it comes to security, and that the EU’s much-maligned Common Security and Defence Policy only gets in NATO’s way. But the choice between NATO and the EU is a completely false one—something that NATO understands as much as anyone else.
Of course, NATO remains our most important military alliance, as it has been ever since its creation. But to suggest that our security can be protected through military means alone is to completely misunderstand the modern world.
Whether we are tracking Daesh fighters returning to their European homes, combating Russia’s attempts to use the withholding of gas supplies to weaken its neighbours, or tackling threats to cyber-security, these are not and will never be the job of NATO.
But they are all part of the EU’s collective responsibilities, and the joint initiatives we have taken on (and often led) with our European partners have been hugely important.
That is precisely why the US permanent representative to NATO, Douglas Lute, told me when I visited Brussels recently that if the UK were to “pull up the drawbridge and stay inside fortress NATO,” it wouldn’t be enough to keep us safe in the twenty-first century. The reality of EU operations is that they don’t compete with NATO. In fact, the two complement each other like two sides of the same coin.
Take the collective action that the two organisations launched against Somali pirates near the Horn of Africa. At the peak of the piracy crisis around five years ago, the news was filled with reports of hijackings, hostage-taking and even the abduction of tourists from nearby resorts. Following a UN mandate for an international response, the British-led EU naval taskforce was first on the scene. Since then the number of attacks has fallen dramatically, and the maritime force has had a 100 per cent success rate in safeguarding UN vessels delivering humanitarian aid.
Crucial to the mission’s success was its recognition of the need to tackle not just the threat of piracy itself, but the breakdown in governance which allowed it to thrive in the first place. This breakdown was systemic, and in many cases institutions in the region had to be built up from scratch.
At one point, around 80 per cent of the pirates arrested by the authorities couldn’t be prosecuted, because there weren’t enough prosecutors in the area. And the small number that the authorities did manage to prosecute often couldn’t be imprisoned, because there wasn’t enough prison space.
So while the maritime task force patrolled the seas, a civilian task force went to work training local police forces, coast guards, prosecutors and judges throughout the region. At the same time, EU funding helped to build prison capacity and to pay the allowances of the African Union peacekeeping force working to restore order in Somalia itself.
All of which reminds us that in today’s world, no-one has a monopoly on security, and we must never be forced to choose between the EU and NATO when we need both to keep us safe.
The principle that led the states of western Europe to pull together for the first time amid the rubble left behind after World War Two is as relevant today as it has ever been. And it is no coincidence that it took place at the same time NATO was formed. We have always led the way in the post-war Europe. It was built on the foundations of peace, security and shared prosperity. Now is no time to turn our backs.
If there’s a campaign equivalent of the silly season, for me it reached a peak when one of the papers carried the headline: “EU army plans kept secret from voters” last month. Even the article itself showed this was complete nonsense. There was no such plan, nothing was being kept secret, and that none of it had anything to do with a so-called “EU army.”
That didn’t stop the Brexiteers though. Conservative MP Liam Fox suggested that the EU was trying to “weaken NATO and undermine our security,” echoing what has become a depressingly familiar refrain in recent weeks. Of course, the “Leave” campaign concentrates on such issues because they do not want to talk about the economy, yet it is precisely the economic impact of Brexit on our nation’s defences that should worry them the most.
The government has committed to a defence budget that is based on a percentage of GDP—two per cent, to be exact. This would buy a great deal less in a post-Brexit economy than it does today.
In a worst-case scenario, cuts could be imposed on a scale last seen in 2010, when the Strategic Defence and Security Review enacted an 8 per cent real-terms cut to the Ministry of Defence’s budget which led to a 20-30 per cent reduction in our military capabilities according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Those who would have us leave the EU also argue that it does not make us safer. They say NATO is the only alliance that counts when it comes to security, and that the EU’s much-maligned Common Security and Defence Policy only gets in NATO’s way. But the choice between NATO and the EU is a completely false one—something that NATO understands as much as anyone else.
Of course, NATO remains our most important military alliance, as it has been ever since its creation. But to suggest that our security can be protected through military means alone is to completely misunderstand the modern world.
Whether we are tracking Daesh fighters returning to their European homes, combating Russia’s attempts to use the withholding of gas supplies to weaken its neighbours, or tackling threats to cyber-security, these are not and will never be the job of NATO.
But they are all part of the EU’s collective responsibilities, and the joint initiatives we have taken on (and often led) with our European partners have been hugely important.
That is precisely why the US permanent representative to NATO, Douglas Lute, told me when I visited Brussels recently that if the UK were to “pull up the drawbridge and stay inside fortress NATO,” it wouldn’t be enough to keep us safe in the twenty-first century. The reality of EU operations is that they don’t compete with NATO. In fact, the two complement each other like two sides of the same coin.
Take the collective action that the two organisations launched against Somali pirates near the Horn of Africa. At the peak of the piracy crisis around five years ago, the news was filled with reports of hijackings, hostage-taking and even the abduction of tourists from nearby resorts. Following a UN mandate for an international response, the British-led EU naval taskforce was first on the scene. Since then the number of attacks has fallen dramatically, and the maritime force has had a 100 per cent success rate in safeguarding UN vessels delivering humanitarian aid.
Crucial to the mission’s success was its recognition of the need to tackle not just the threat of piracy itself, but the breakdown in governance which allowed it to thrive in the first place. This breakdown was systemic, and in many cases institutions in the region had to be built up from scratch.
At one point, around 80 per cent of the pirates arrested by the authorities couldn’t be prosecuted, because there weren’t enough prosecutors in the area. And the small number that the authorities did manage to prosecute often couldn’t be imprisoned, because there wasn’t enough prison space.
So while the maritime task force patrolled the seas, a civilian task force went to work training local police forces, coast guards, prosecutors and judges throughout the region. At the same time, EU funding helped to build prison capacity and to pay the allowances of the African Union peacekeeping force working to restore order in Somalia itself.
All of which reminds us that in today’s world, no-one has a monopoly on security, and we must never be forced to choose between the EU and NATO when we need both to keep us safe.
The principle that led the states of western Europe to pull together for the first time amid the rubble left behind after World War Two is as relevant today as it has ever been. And it is no coincidence that it took place at the same time NATO was formed. We have always led the way in the post-war Europe. It was built on the foundations of peace, security and shared prosperity. Now is no time to turn our backs.
