European Union (Amendment) Bill

moved Amendment No. 21B: 21B: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after ““excluding”” insert— ““(i) Article 1, paragraph 49(c), inserted Article 28A TEU, replacement paragraph 7, relating to a Member State’s obligation of aid and assistance; and (ii) ”” The noble Lord said: The provision highlighted in the amendment is an example of our concern with the provisions that this treaty establishes on European defence. As my noble friends have pointed out, during the European convention in 2003, the Government held a very different opinion on some of the paragraphs in this treaty on the issue of providing aid and assistance for mutual defence. They stated categorically that they, "““cannot accept a provision importing mutual defence commitment in the European Union””." They were quite right. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Government’s views on this provision have so radically changed. Paragraph 7 of the inserted Article 28A clearly duplicates NATO’s Article 5 and, as Her Majesty’s Government have said: "““The EU cannot duplicate this role””—" of mutual defence— "““either as a whole or through reinforced co-operation””." As I made clear in the debate on the previous group of amendments, I do not believe that this treaty will in any way increase the European capability for defence, within or without NATO. The idea that ESDP will be able to implement an effective campaign against an aggressor without NATO or the USA is a fantasy. The inclusion of the phrase, "““this shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States””," shows how resistant many European countries, for example, Ireland, Austria and Sweden, are to any threat to their neutrality. This provision at least mentions NATO, but between the right to neutrality and the obligation to abide by NATO commitments, there is nothing left of this obligation for mutual defence. I beg to move.