Occasional Paper January 2013 The consequences of a British exit from the EU and CSDP: An analytical timeline Philip Worré Executive Director, ISIS Europe Key points: • Britain has always acted according to its national interest when dealing with European defence; • Britain has much to lose from leaving the EU—such a move would go against its national interest; • A British exit would have mixed consequences for the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). www.isis-europe.org www.natowatch.org ISIS Europe - NATO Watch Occasional Paper January 2013 The views expressed in this paper are the authors’ own, and do not necessarily reflect those of ISIS Europe, NATO Watch or any other institution with which the author is associated. Comments on this paper are invited and should be forwarded to: Philip Worré, Executive Director, International Security Information Service (ISIS Europe), Rue Archim de, 50, 1000 Brussels, Belgium, or via email to [email protected] Acknowledgements ________________________________________________________________ This paper is a product of an ISIS Europe-NATO Watch partnership to address particular international security and defence debates within the EU and NATO. ISIS Europe and NATO Watch gratefully acknowledge the support of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, without which this work would not be possible. Published in January 2013 by ISIS Europe and NATO Watch. Reproduction is permitted with proper acknowledgment to the source and author, a visible web-link back to us, and maintaining all links contained in the original (unless we have agreed otherwise). This applies to recognised not-for-profit organisations and allied groups only. (Commercial organisations and those deriving financial profit from our services are required to pay for the use of material. Please contact us for details.) We apply the 'Creative Commons' agreement to much of our material. This serves to separate out the moral rights of copyright ownership and use from its over- commercialised aspects. See copyright and legal information on our websites for further details. ISIS Europe - NATO Watch Occasional Paper January 2013 Analysis European integration initiatives, while continuing the aforementioned ad hoc initiatives. The _____________________________________ collapse of the Berlin Wall and of the Soviet The announcement by British Prime Minister Union led to a period of interrogation; questions David Cameron that a referendum on Britain’s EU were raised about the role the US should play in membership will be held by 2017, gives rise to Europe, the definition of a European defence questions about the consequences of such a identity, and the inclusion of defence matters withdrawal for the EU’s Common and Security within the mandate of the European Defence Policy (CSDP). A withdrawal would Communities/Union. Britain had to tread a undoubtedly have important repercussions, as narrow line in negotiations, a task made even the United Kingdom has very often been at the more complicated by internal political challenges core of the development of European defence such as the replacement of Margaret Thatcher by policies, initiatives and capabilities. John Major in 1990, just as negotiations were beginning on what would become the Maastricht Britain’s attitude and role in the comparatively Treaty. Since then, Britain’s leaders have been recent history of European defence has varied caught between trying to present the benefits of from enthusiastic participation—with US European integration through maximising the support—to reluctant approval or hostile returns that EU membership produces, and the opposition. A brief timeline of key stages of pressure of increasingly Europe-phobic public British and European defence development opinion. shows the degree of British involvement in not only the EU’s defence dimension, but also in The unease with which Britain has reluctantly armament and defence industry cooperation. accepted European defence integration, even opposing further military integration within the The timeline of Britain’s role in European defence EU, especially permanent operational military (see Appendix) can be divided into three main headquarters, has reached a climax with David periods. Cameron’s announcement of a referendum on EU The first period (1947-1969) occurred in the membership. Yet this decision merely follows the aftermath of World War II and during the early established pattern: in the realm of European development of the Cold War. This period defence, in particular, Britain has played a highlighted the tight bonds that linked the United singular role, virtually always motivated by Kingdom to the United States, as each main national interest. decision was adopted with the support of the Consequences for CSDP and European American ally, which led to certain tensions in defence Europe, particularly with Gaullist France. Britain has always adopted a very cautious The second period (1970-1990) occurred during attitude with regard to European defence the opening of dialogue in the Cold War, and also integration. coincided with De Gaulle’s retirement. Britain Initiatives were judged on their individual merits adopted a series of ad hoc pragmatic decisions to and potential rewards. Britain remains a global join several defence cooperation organisations military and nuclear power, a European and groups which either promoted British permanent member of the UN Security Council, interests or could lead to potential political or capable of global force projection (albeit on a financial advantages for Britain. limited scale). Britain contributes to EU The third period (1991-2013) was characterised Battlegroups (the next UK Battlegroup by either opposition or reluctant acceptance of contribution will occur in the second half of 3 ISIS Europe - NATO Watch Occasional Paper January 2013 2013), and regularly contributes military comprehensive in its approach. Purely military personnel to most CSDP missions. interventions are not and cannot be effective, except in very rare cases. The European Union, A British exit would undoubtedly cause much with its CSDP and development programmes, is turmoil, and CSDP will have lost a key contributor one of the rare regional organisations that are in and supporter. From a strictly CSDP- and a position to provide long-lasting solutions to European defence integration- perspective, conflicts compared to the position of NATO. however, Britain’s departure could create Peace and stability programmes also provide opportunities in terms of military cooperation Member States with possibilities of developing and accelerate the establishment of permanent contacts, political and commercial, in post- structured cooperation, because of a more conflict areas, benefiting all parties involved. unified approach among the remaining Member Although utilitarian, this approach provides States. Britain’s participation in non-EU European Member States with incentives to take part in initiatives such as the Movement Coordination programmes and missions promoting regional Centre Europe (MCCE) and Organisation for Joint stability. Armament Cooperation (OCCAR), the numerous links between CSDP and NATO and the existence Drafting comparable but bilateral agreements of bilateral defence agreements would also mean with relevant partners would not be cost- that Britain remained a European partner in the effective and would certainly not be efficient; nor areas of the defence industry, military would NATO provide any comparable equivalent. operational aspects, and European mutual The idea of losing all influence within CSDP, defence. within its security partnerships, and—in the same spirit—within the entire dimension of European The absence of Britain in CSDP could also foreign development aid, could be a strong contribute to a further ideological separation deterrent that would convince Britain to remain a between the “hard-power” advocate, NATO, and member of the EU, a position that the US has the “soft-power” specialist that is the EU. Britain indicated it favours. is often viewed as America’s primary ally, demonstrated by the 2003 British support for a Conclusion US intervention in Iraq; as a regional security and A British exit from the EU would have important defence actor specialising in the projection of consequences for the EU, but the subsequent “soft power”, often specialising in Security Sector shift that would occur in the reorganisation of Reform, development and nation-building, the EU CSDP, and the lack of major opposition towards and CSDP would be seen as an increasingly further permanent structured cooperation and separate entity from US-dominated NATO, the establishment of operational military particularly in regions hostile to America. At the headquarters within theEU would mean that the UN Security Council, France would thus be the EU would recover and continue to develop CSDP. only veto-holding representative of the EU, which could lead to tensions regarding mandates for Britain would have more to lose: it is unlikely that CSDP missions in Africa, an area in which France Britain’s partnership with the US and NATO still maintains a strong military presence as well membership would be sufficient for it to remain as “special relationships”. an important actor in the global security arena. From a security and defence position, by exiting Consequences for the United Kingdom the EU and CSDP, an isolated Britain would lose The nature of contemporary crises, whether considerable power and its