The Foreign Ministers’ group on the Future of Europe, set up by Germany’s Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, and composed by Foreign Ministers of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain, published recently their Final Report, presenting “concrete proposals designed to address the challenges that Europe is facing.” They pointed out “Many can be done within the existing treaty framework; some may need amendments to the treaties.” Unsurprisingly, they called for a stronger EU role, particularly in foreign and defence policy. In fact, they suggested far reaching proposals that would entail further transfers of national competences to Brussels in this area.

The EU member states have given up a substantial portion of their sovereignty so that the EU could speak with one voice at the international stage. It is important to recall that the creation of the posts of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the post of President of the European Council as well as the creation of a European External Action Service means that the UK‘s foreign policy position has been progressively negotiated by the EU as a whole. This obviously threatens an independent British Foreign and Defence Policy.

The Government has been endorsing the idea of the EU speaking one voice on foreign policy. However, despite all the claims, there is no consistent foreign policy approach and the EU has not matched its aspirations to become a major global player. In fact, there is no unified position among the EU Member States on many foreign policy issues. The crisis in Libya and the level of sanctions against the Syrian regime have showed how difficult and unlikely for the EU to speak with one voice.

According to the Future Group’s report “The EU needs to demonstrate that it is capable to respond to global challenges and speak with one voice on central questions on the international agenda.” However, their recommendations to achieve such aims, if accepted by the member states, would have a profound impact on the UK’s national interests.

Noticing that the Decision establishing the European External Action Service would be review in 2013, the Future Group wants to further strengthen the EEAS. According to the 11 foreign ministers, “To achieve a comprehensive and integrated approach for all components of the EU’s international profile, the European External Action Service (EEAS) should be strengthened within the framework of the review of the EEAS Decision in 2013.” Then, they proposed that the High Representative “should be responsible for central external action areas (e.g. Neighbourhood Policy);”

In order to make the EU into a “real actor on the global scene”, the Future Group believes there should be joint representation, they are, therefore, calling “for a common seat in international organizations.” It is important to recall that from 1 December 2009, the EU has assumed all rights and obligations of the European Community, as well as its status within the United Nations. Moreover, the European Commission delegation to the UN has become a EU delegation. The Union is now represented by Ms Ashton, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, for matters relating to the common foreign and security policy, together with Herman Van Rompuy, the first full-time President of the European Council, on issues other than CFSP, the external representation of the Union, is ensured by the Commission. The EU has an observer status in the UN, consequently it has no voting and speaking rights. Only UN member states have the right to speak at the general assembly meetings. The EU has been represented by the Member States holding the rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union, which, obviously, are full members of the UNGA. Last year, the UN General Assembly has acknowledged the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, i.e. that the Union's external representation is ensured, in accordance with the Treaties, by its top officials who could be the head of its delegation to the UN,
the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the
European Commission President or the President of the European Council. The representatives of the EU, such as Catherine Ashton or Herman Van Rompuy have now the right to address the General Assembly in order to present the EU positions. They will speak on behalf of the EU and Member States at the UN General Assembly. The EU representatives are therefore entitled to presente and promote the EU’s positions in the UN. One could wonder whether the EU new rights will affect the UK’s position as a member of the UNGA. The UK as well as any member states ability to address the UN might be seriously affected. The EU member states would have to act as one entity within the UNAG.  It is important to mention that under the amendments introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, Member States with a seat on the Security Council are required to request that Ms Ashton speak on the EU’s behalf, where the Union has defined a common policy. It is a matter for the UN Security Council and not for the Union that appears before it. Member States who are members of the Security Council are required to defend positions in the interests of the Union. The UK, under such an obligation, is not free to act independently within the Security Council. Member States have different interests in the international arena, there is no unified position among the EU Member States on many foreign policy issues. Consequently, if the EU is to be given an UNSC seat the individual foreign policy interest of each member state would be seriously harmed. However, according to the Future Group “The EU has to act more united in international organizations; e.g. by delivering CFSP statements on behalf of the EU.” Hence, foreign policy would not longer be conducted by the member states but by the EU institutions.

The CSDP is under the control of the Council of the European Union and it is managed by the EU High Representative. The objectives of the CFSP have been broadened extensively within the Lisbon Treaty, leading to a catastrophic surrender of national sovereignty and greatly reduce the capacity of the UK Government to assert an independent foreign policy.
The Future Group also recommends the use of “more majority decisions in the sphere of our Common Foreign and Security Policy”. The intergovernmental nature of the CFSP must be maintained, and, consequently no further decisions should be made for voting by QMV. Member states must retain their right of veto, however according to the Future Group we should “at least prevent one single member state from being able to obstruct initiatives(, and in this framework also further develop the concept of constructive abstention;)”. If such proposals are accepted by the other member states unanimity voting would no longer be the rule but QM, consequently the UK would not be able to veto initiatives within this area which are against the national interest.

It should be mention that any changes to the existing treaties would have to be negotiated, agreed and then ratified by all Member States. However, aiming at “Improving the long-term overall functioning of the European Union”, the majority of members of the Future Group believe that “both the adoption and the subsequent entry into force of treaty revisions (with the exception of enlargement) should be implemented by a super-qualified majority of the Member States and their population.” In fact, they said, “A large majority of member states should not be restrained of further advancing in integration due to either lack of political will or to significant delays in the ratification processes.” Faced with the prospect of a British veto, they are therefore proposing to scrap unanimity for amending the Treaties.

The Future Group also stressed that “The EU also needs to fundamentally reinforce the Common Security and Defence Policy and shape relations with strategic partners more effectively.” They believe that “defence policy should have more ambitious goals which go beyond “pooling and sharing”.” Moreover, they recalled the possibilities provided by the Lisbon Treaty, namely that “the establishment of Permanent Structured Cooperation should be implemented.” In fact, the Lisbon Treaty also introduced the Permanent Structured Co-operation, a framework by which a group of Member States can decide to build closer relations and co-operation. Taking into account the current economic situation and the substantial cuts on the member states defence budgets, such idea is gathering support among several member states.
The Member States who wish to participate in the permanent structured cooperation shall notify the Council and the High Representative  of their intention. Such structure looks like euro zone as not all the Members States will be able to participate in the defence group because not all fulfil the requirements and others will not participate because they do not want to. The participating Member States have to agree in intensively proceed to develop their defence capacities through the development of their “national contributions and participation, where appropriate, in multinational forces, in the main European equipment programmes,” and in the activity of the European Defence Agency “in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments”. Moreover, they have to have “the capacity to supply (…) either at national level or as a component of multinational force groups,  combat units and supporting elements such as transport and logistics, capable of carrying out the tasks such as disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue, conflict prevention and peacekeeping “within a period of 5 to 30 days, in particular in response to requests from the United Nations Organisation, and which can be sustained for an initial period of 30 days and be extended up to at least 120 days.” The participating Member States would also have to carry out measures such as harmonising the identification of their military needs, pooling of assets, cooperation in the areas of training and logistics, identifying common objectives regarding the commitment of forces.
The Conservative party has been strongly against to the Lisbon Treaty’s defence provisions, including this permanent structured co-operation.
It is important to recall that, after consulting the High Representative, the Council will decide by QMV, to set up the permanent structured cooperation and determine the list of participants Member States. Hence, Britain will not be able to veto such decision. Therefore, the permanent structured cooperation might be established against the will of some Member States. The participating Members will use the CFSDP for their own purposes. Moreover, once the permanent structured cooperation is established only participating Member States are allowed to adopt decisions relating to the development of structured cooperation as well as the future participating Member States.

By having in place a Permanent Structured Cooperation, Brussels would move forward towards military and defence integration. It would be a step towards a European Army. In fact, the Future Group stressed that “There is a need to strengthen the Common Security and Defence Policy” which “could eventually involve a European army.” As Geoffrey van Orden MEP noted, "This is an accelerated and dangerous push towards creation of a European federal state which none of our people want.”

The EU is duplicating the work of the United Nations and NATO without adding value. There are no troops for all the NATO, EU and UN missions. These policies would undermine British national interests, particularly the UK’s partnership with US and UK’s relations with NATO. In fact, it seems that the Union defence integration is progressively reaching a point at which each Member State is compelled to follow Brussels's orders. Britain is at risk of being compelled to act under the increasing authority of an EU Foreign Minister who will conduct the foreign policy on behalf of a European single state. David Cameron must therefore, as Bill Cash said “take a strong stance in defence of British geopolitical strategic and defence interests and renegotiate the Treaties which have endangered Britain‘s defence interests.” It would not be enough to negotiate just opt outs from the CSDP. In order to protect British national interest the Government must renegotiate a new relationship with the EU.