Brexit in our time?

By January 26, 2018February 18th, 2021No Comments



Exclusive Brexit Facts4EU.Org analysis of EU’s demands on UK for defence & security


UK to provide defence of EU unconditionally

UK to continue to pay

UK not to alter any bilateral defence arrangements it has with individual countries

UK (NATO’s 2nd biggest funder) to have no impact on NATO’s EU relationship

UK to obey all EU military sanctions against other countries

UK to provide military & intelligence staff, equipment, and money

UK never to lead an operation and to take orders from EU militaries

Source: Internal EU27 preparatory discussions on the framework for the future relationship: “Security, Defence and Foreign Policy”, ad-hoc committee, 23 Jan 2018

Brexit Facts4EU.Org has analysed a copy of the EU’s latest negotiation notes in respect of defence and security matters to summarise the EU’s newest demands. These notes were printed in Brussels on Tuesday this week for an ad-hoc committee of the EU, meeting specifically on this matter.

The notes cover arrangements for the so-called Transition Period which ostensibly will start on 29th March 2019, as well as for the long-term defence and security relationship between the UK and the EU.


The notes assess the implications of Brexit on various areas of the EU’s defence and security capabilities, as well as considering some foreign policy implications. They then look at what the EU interest is, before setting out the EU’s demands on the UK.

Below we set out some key parts of the notes. We comment in the ‘Observations’ section. What follows are verbatim quotes from the document.


Bilateral defence and security cooperation between UK and EU Member States not to be put at risk

No impact on the EU-ΝΑΤΟ strategic partnership

Unconditional UK commitment to maintaining European security


Brexit impact

Third countries [ie, the UK] do not provide Operation Headquarters for CSDP operations/missions

Third countries cannot be lead-nation or have the post of the Operation Commander or other high level positions in operations/missions

Immediate implications for the UK

Need to transfer the Operation Headquarters of Operation Atalanta currently provided by the UK (Northwood)

Need to transfer the responsibility of the Operational Command of Althea (currently DSACEUR)

Need to adjust the EU Battlegroup roster of 2nd Semester 2019 (currently UK as framework nation)

TRANSITION CFSP/CSDP (Common Security & Defence Policy)

Security, defence and foreign policy as part of the ‘acquis’

No longer participate in the EU institutions, nor in the decision-making of Union bodies, whilst all existing Union regulatory and budgetary instruments and structures will continue to apply

Implications for CFSP/CSDP:-

Decision-making: UK no longer part of Council bodies; bound by EU Council Decision in the field of CFSP (including on sanctions) -> need for a specific consultation mechanism?

CSDP missions and operations: UK as contributor (staff and assets). UK to contribute to the financing of the common costs (Athena mechanism)

CFSP Agencies: UK no longer part of their management but participate in their activities. UK to contribute to the financing of the CFSP agencies”

The above are exact quotes from the notes, selected from a 40 page document in order to present something readable to you. The notes do mention other matters such as satellite systems, but for clarity we have focused on the main issues.


Readers may find the above revelations shocking. We hope so, or we are seriously out of touch with our readership.

You may wonder why you haven’t heard about these breathtakingly outrageous EU demands, either from the BBC or from the defence or political correspondents of the major newspapers. Please be in no doubt: these new demands are real. We have kept a copy of the notes, in case they are ‘modified’ at a later stage. This has happened in the past. If you would like to know why the BBC and other major media outlets haven’t told you about these latest demands, you’ll have to ask them.


Defence is a major bargaining chip for the UK in the Brexit negotiations – or at least it should be. Before any Remoaners start complaining about the use of bargaining chips, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the use of strengths by each party in a negotiation. That is perfectly normal.

It is a simple fact that the UK has been subsidizing the cost of defending Europe for decades. In very recent years, EU countries which are also members of NATO finally agreed to start investing at least 2% of their GDP in defence, but only four are currently doing so.

There are two countries in the EU with strong militaries – the UK and France. Whilst we believe that the UK should continue to play a major role in defending the European theatre, [why?] it is perfectly outrageous for the EU to demand this. They should, not to put too fine a point on it, be asking us very nicely indeed.

Unfortunately the rot set in when Theresa May unilaterally announced that the UK would continue to protect the EU militarily. The EU clearly saw this as yet another sign of her weakness and are now turning the screw and making even more demands of the UK’s armed forces and security agencies.

We would simply have said: “Of course if we are continuing to trade with you normally after Brexit, we will continue to defend you normally after Brexit.”


Today we will all hear a speech by David Davis MP, Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, regarding the government’s latest thoughts on the supposed Implementation Period – or ‘Transition Period’, as it would appear it will now be.

After watching him on Wednesday we hold out very little hope of a speech containing content we could support.

If you then add the above issues surrounding the defence of the realm, the UK’s internal security, and the treatment of our armed forces, we think it highly unlikely that we will be able to hold back any longer from publishing a damning indictment of the government and certain key individuals.


There is still time for the government to come to its senses. So far many of the issues which have been discussed and agreed with the EU are still capable of being ‘massaged’ into a more acceptable shape, which might gain the consent of the voters.

Regular readers know our long-held view: that the EU elites were never going to behave in a normal way and negotiate a reasonable deal with the UK.

We would have adopted a far more robust approach, which we are certain would have resulted in the UK walking away from the table last year on the basis of the EU elites’ unreasonable behaviour. This would have saved everyone a lot of time and effort and we would by now have been very close to a full, clean Brexit.


It is difficult to put the various Brexit issues into order of importance as they are all important to us, and no doubt to you too.

However, defence is usually held out as being the first duty of government.

If that is true, then the government MUST respond to our article above. We also invite any interested politicians to comment, and any political or defence journalists from the mainstream media to contact us if they require further information.

If readers would like to ‘do their bit’, please forward the link to this article to any politicians you are in contact with. You might want to ask them if they were aware that the EU is insisting that:

UK to provide defence of EU unconditionally

UK to continue to provide troops, equipment, and money

EU military to command all operations, never British commanders

UK’s dealings with NATO and other countries not to affect EU

UK to obey EU’s decisions on applying military sanctions to other countries

Note: In the past, some politicians have defended the government to us by saying: “Oh, that hasn’t been agreed, that’s just their negotiating position.”

Don’t accept this. Every single time we have warned of something and been given that excuse, the matter at issue has subsequently been agreed by the British government.

We’re very much afraid we shall all see more confirmation of this Munich mentality today.

[Sources: EU Commission]

06.55am, 26 Jan 2018