By Katie Engelhart - Tuesday, January 15, 2013 - 0 Comments
Decision comes amid threat of financial collapse in EU
Later this year, the leaders of European Union nations will meet in Brussels for their annual European council. On the agenda: a discussion of Europe’s military might. At the summit, it’s likely that two equally bold visions for European defence will be put forward. One would see the union’s 27 member states pool military resources as never before—with an eye to eventually building a bona fide EU army. The other would see the union member with the strongest military, Britain, withdraw from the EU—leaving the Continent sputtering.
In London, it is talk of a potential pullout from the EU that dominates. But elsewhere, calls for a pan-European military are growing—with France and Germany leading the charge. In September, a group of EU foreign ministers spelled it out directly, weighing, in a controversial report, the possibility of a European army.
How exactly that army would function has yet to be decided—or even sketched out in much detail. In the event of another Iraq war, would the EU commit troops as a block? In the case of a major terrorist attack in Paris, would EU troops be called in? What seems unlikely is the prospect of EU leaders disbanding their own militaries. For that reason, a viable EU army would have to accommodate coexisting national forces—and leave room for individual opt-outs. But the question is: should the balance between national and continental defence be shifted? And how far? Last fall, EU defence ministers agreed to develop what sounds an awful lot like a kindergarten rulebook: a voluntary code of conduct on pooling and sharing. Continue…
By selley - Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 1:57 PM - 0 Comments
LONG WEEKEND ROUNDUP
Must-reads: …Dan Gardner on the carbon tax; Don Martin on Judge
LONG WEEKEND ROUNDUP
Coulda been the hubris. Mighta been the stupidity.
On the government’s defence un-strategy, Iggy’s growing unpopularity and other Ottawa-related follies.
Scott Taylor, writing in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, recaps the wholesale embarrassment that followed the government’s unveiling of a $30-billion defence strategy—which consisted almost entirely of previously-announced endeavours and exists in written form, if at all, as a top-secret Cabinet document. He suggests “the spin doctors” at the PMO and at National Defence headquarters might be feeling like the guy in the Irish Rovers’ “Wasn’t That a Party,” “wherein the singer tries to recall how he ended up in the back of a police car.”
To believe Michael Ignatieff would “have the edge” over Bob Rae in a race to replace Stéphane Dion is to “mis-read the situation,” John Ivison writes in the National Post. His second-place finish at the 2006 convention was misleading, for starters, since many delegates who supported Dion would have gone to Rae had he made the final two. And Iggy has neglected to mend fences within the party, Liberal MPs helpfully tell Ivison, even as he builds new ones with overly-ostentatious fundraising and a general aloofness. “It may be that [his ambition] has o’er leapt itself and his best chance to be king is already behind him,” he concludes.