The France-UK accord on "defence"
Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 8:50AM 
FT story on UK-France defence agreement.
The basics:
Nuclear weapons
For the first time ever, both states are collaborating over their independent nuclear deterrents
A facility at Valduc in France will model the performance of both countries’ nuclear warheads to ensure long-term security and safety. This will be supported by a joint Technology Development Centre at Aldermaston, UK
This will cut costs for both the UK and France, and involves an unprecedented sharing of knowledge about nuclear weapons
Future deployment of aircraft carriers
From 2020, Britain and France will probably have one operational carrier each. The timing of refits will be co-ordinated to ensure one carrier is always deployable. When one nation’s carrier is being refitted, the other will not be forced to deploy its vessel in operations against its will
The aim of this is to ensure that Britain and France can always offer up a carrier to the major international missions – Nato, the EU or United Nations - that might need one
Future deployment of ground troops
Britain and France will develop a rapid reaction force, with training beginning next year. This is not aimed at creating a mixed brigade as some eurospectics fear. Instead, a British brigade and French brigade – around 5,000 troops each – will be trained to fight alongside each other on joint missions under a commander from either state. This will enhance France’s ability to operate in Nato. Because France was outside Nato in the four decades after 1966, it does not operate to Nato norms
Industrial co-operation
Both countries will work together on the next generation of Unmanned Air Surveillance Systems – or drones. In the longer term they will jointly assess requirements for the next generation of Unmanned Combat Air Systems from 2030. A joint technological and industrial roadmap will be developed over the next two years. British and French contractors are warmly welcoming this agreement because it gives long-term guidance over how they should work together
This will be called a lot of things, the big criticism being a "surrender of sovereignty," as the piece notes.
But to me it's just a load of common sense. The UK and France don't face different security environments, even as they do often disagree on how to respond to things that arise. But as this point in their shared evolution, an action that cannot achieve reasonably good approval ratings from both sides of the Channel probably isn't something either of them would want to pursue on their own. So rather than a loss of sovereignty, I would say the people in both countries are now unusually empowered to veto overseas operations.
And I don't think that's a bad or unrealistic thing in this day and age. For NATO countries to be fighting and losing people in Afghanistan while it's clear that other nations, far closer to the scene, have more to lose--and gain, is simply not tenable in a long-term sense.
I do think this is a harbinger of things to come: the pooling of national security resources to a degree unthinkable just a few short years ago. The demographics will simply demand it in terms of money, and the public will learn to both live with it and enjoy--as they age--more say over what actually gets done.
To me, the rising powers of the East and South would be wise not to crow about this or see only in this the decline of once-great powers. What it really represents is the West moving progressively to reduce dramatically its long-term security efforts on behalf of the collective global community. Rising powers may instinctively sense more freedom of actions for themselves, but what they should see is more responsibility being dumped on their laps.
The days of free-riding are coming to an end. Ditto for America's "special relationship" with the Brits, as our ex just got remarried to somebody who doesn't approve of nights out with the boys.
Reader Comments (2)
I don't think of it so much as the end of the Special Relationship as much as it is the new ménage à trois.
I think this strengthens the argument for reshuffling the permanent seats on the Security Council. Having a single rep for the UK and France would be more logical than having a rep from each (while India has to hope they get a rotating seat every few years), and more tenable than a single rep for the EU.