B2 The Daily of Geopolitical Europe. News. Files. Reflections. Reports

News BlogEU Defense (Doctrine)

With the denunciation of the WEU Treaty effective, the English fired the first

(BRUSSELS2) The 10 signatory states have published a joint communiqué announcing their intention to put an end to the Treaty on WEU (Western European Union). A denunciation that responds to different imperatives as I mentioned previously (1). The United Kingdom yesterday issued a press release formalizing its position; which is therefore not a surprise. According to my information, all the States should side with this position, including Belgium which was one of the countries most reluctant to the disappearance of the WEU.

The discussion begins. In concrete terms, the denunciation will actually be made to the Belgian government, depositary of the Treaty, in April. But this does not end the discussion. On the contrary ! Now opens a period of one year (of notice). During this period, the signatory states of the WEU will have to define a few "little" things: in particular the future of the staff. But above all more political questions: the role of the European Parliament in particular or, more generally, the place of NATO and the EU in European defence. Not everyone seems to have the same opinion on this point. That's an understatement. In any case, the English fired first. And their argument is clear.

L'British pitch. What is interesting are the British arguments developed by Chrys Bryant, the Minister for European Affairs: 1) There is NATO; 2) there was the EU (and again NATO and the United States; 3) it is expensive to justify this withdrawal. " The role in mutual defense was essentially symbolic since NATO was created - and successive British governments have made it clear - like the Lisbon Treaty - that NATO is the forum and the basis for collective defense allies ". And " the operational role of WEU has been taken over by the European Union. With this (latest) development – ​​which both NATO and the US have welcomed – it is clear that WEU is no longer relevant to today's European security architecture. Although the UK recognizes the role of the WEU Assembly in conveying the views of national parliamentarians across Europe on European defence, we cannot believe that this justifies a cost of 2 million a year for UK ».

The role of Parliament European at the heart of future discussions. During the notice period, WEU member states will have to consider the future of WEU - and of its assembly. For the British, it is also very clear. Chris Bryant reminded us: the end of WEU does not mean the extension of the competences of the European Parliament " Given the intergovernmental nature of CSDP, we believe, however, that it remains fundamentally a matter for national parliaments. He there is no reason and no case for the European Parliament to extend its competence in this area. " It's clear ! But it's not at all the same story
"caprice des Dieux", the seat of the European Parliament. Where MEPs generally believe that Protocol No. 1 of the Treaty of Lisbon should apply, allowing the national parliaments to be associated in a structured way with parliamentary debates.

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

(1) The end of theWEU (and its assembly) programmed? 

(2) The end of theWEU (and its assembly) programmed? (following)

Nicolas Gros Verheyde

Chief editor of the B2 site. Graduated in European law from the University of Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne and listener to the 65th session of the IHEDN (Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale. Journalist since 1989, founded B2 - Bruxelles2 in 2008. EU/NATO correspondent in Brussels for Sud-Ouest (previously West-France and France-Soir).

s2Member®