The EU Question The European Freedom Alliance Party in the European Parliament is reportedly calling to make missile defense in Eastern Europe an EU issue.[8] This is bad news. The supranational European Union is a bureaucratic, statist, cumbersome, anti-American entity that has attempted to frustrate American policy on multiple occasions. The involvement of the EU is unnecessary and would effectively kill any hope of a deal. Poland, the Czech Republic, and the United States must give zero consideration to involving the EU at any level. For its part, NATO has generally considered the Washington-Warsaw-Prague talks to be bilateral and has not interfered. Also, NATO has expressed general support for European missile defenses, especially against short- and medium-range missiles. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stated after the April North Atlantic Council meeting: "There is absolutely a shared threat perception between the allies. Allies all agree that there is a threat from ballistic missiles."[9] NATO's developing interest in missile defense is a good thing; it should ultimately complement America's missile defense program in Eastern Europe. There is no reason to believe that simultaneous development of missile defenses in Europe by both NATO and the U.S. would be incompatible in the long-term.
The European Freedom Alliance Party in the European Parliament is reportedly calling to make missile defense in Eastern Europe an EU issue.[8] This is bad news. The supranational European Union is a bureaucratic, statist, cumbersome, anti-American entity that has attempted to frustrate American policy on multiple occasions. The involvement of the EU is unnecessary and would effectively kill any hope of a deal. Poland, the Czech Republic, and the United States must give zero consideration to involving the EU at any level.
For its part, NATO has generally considered the Washington-Warsaw-Prague talks to be bilateral and has not interfered. Also, NATO has expressed general support for European missile defenses, especially against short- and medium-range missiles. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stated after the April North Atlantic Council meeting: "There is absolutely a shared threat perception between the allies. Allies all agree that there is a threat from ballistic missiles."[9] NATO's developing interest in missile defense is a good thing; it should ultimately complement America's missile defense program in Eastern Europe. There is no reason to believe that simultaneous development of missile defenses in Europe by both NATO and the U.S. would be incompatible in the long-term.
The involvement of the EU is unnecessary and would effectively kill any hope of a deal. Poland, the Czech Republic, and the United States must give zero consideration to involving the EU at any level.
That would be this military and intelligence community: As EU governments focus on securing ratification of the proposed Lisbon Reform Treaty in 2008, United States policymakers are concerned its provisions could present serious challenges to transatlantic intelligence and homeland security co-operation. The main US reservation is that, by transferring additional law and justice functions from the individual EU member states to EU institutions, the treaty could disrupt existing bilateral relations between US and EU governments without establishing anything better.(Janes) Fertile ground for a conspiracy theory, wouldn't you say?
That would be this military and intelligence community:
As EU governments focus on securing ratification of the proposed Lisbon Reform Treaty in 2008, United States policymakers are concerned its provisions could present serious challenges to transatlantic intelligence and homeland security co-operation. The main US reservation is that, by transferring additional law and justice functions from the individual EU member states to EU institutions, the treaty could disrupt existing bilateral relations between US and EU governments without establishing anything better.(Janes)
The EU and Washington in its current toxic state are natural enemies. In the longer term EU alignment with Moscow is more likely than EU involvement with Washington.
Washington hasn't realised this, and probably won't until it's too late.
The only thing that has kept Washington at some distance from EU involvement is a condescending belief that the EU is already tame
In what way are they mistaken ? keep to the Fen Causeway
EU policy is, to a greater extent, an expression of our collective national politics If our respective lords and masters bend the knee to Washington, then the EU defers as well.
Whilst I'd agree with you that there are areas of difference, particularly with the ECB. But it is equally true that there are significant matters where the realitonship is supine and grovelling.
I didn't know that cynicism was a particularly British trait. Most of the complaints I receive are from fellow Brits who wish I'd stop being so monotonously negative about British politics and our lapdog relationship with the US. But seeing as I've already been called a pretentious git by your good self I'm just accumulating insults these days. keep to the Fen Causeway
