The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Louis VI the Fat]

John Major, the last Conservative PM, cut defense spending by 25%.
Blair and Brown, Labour, raised it by 25% again.


Since Labour in the past decade, unlike the disastrous decade before under the Tories, presided over massive economic growth, Labour was able to drastically increase the UK defense budget without raising it as a percentage of GDP.

Numbers and facts contradict the stereotype that one ought to vote Conservatives for big defense spending. Labour is where it's at.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Numbers and facts contradict the stereotype that one ought to vote Conservatives for big defense spending. Labour is where it's at.

Mhmm...sure they do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

John Major, the last Conservative PM, cut defense spending by 25%.
Blair and Brown, Labour, raised it by 25% again.


Since Labour in the past decade, unlike the disastrous decade before under the Tories, presided over massive economic growth, Labour was able to drastically increase the UK defense budget without raising it as a percentage of GDP.

Numbers and facts contradict the stereotype that one ought to vote Conservatives for big defense spending. Labour is where it's at.

....except that they cut defence spending as a percentage both of GDP and against inflation. Where as the Conservatives cut it following the Cold-War and maintained the practice of ring fencing a surplus for fighting foriegn wars.

So what you wrote is nonsense, but I'm sure you know that already.

[Louis VI the Fat]

....except that they cut defence spending as a percentage both of GDP and against inflation. Where as the Conservatives cut it following the Cold-War and maintained the practice of ring fencing a surplus for fighting foriegn wars.

So what you wrote is nonsense, but I'm sure you know that already.

Why would I willingly write nonsense? What's that all about?



As ever, I always have a link for those interested. Note how the defense budget really did increase by 25% under Labour. Needless to say, that is 25% against inflation, and not in curency amount (which went up well over 50%). It went down under the Conservatives, by a whopping 25%. Or 1,5% of GDP, after which it stabilised under Labour.

Labour took over in 1997: http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Labour is as aware as I am of the discrepancy between words and actions when it comes to Tories and defense spending, and is already using it in the elections.

I vain, I predict. Because on sheer stereotype, the 'defense vote' goes to the Conservatives, so the Tories reckon they can get away with cutting the defense budget (again!) and their electorate will never know it, under the spell as they are from stereotypes based on Tory robust defense rethoric. Which is all talk, instead of action.

Defence may avoid fall of spending axe if Labour wins election, says Mandelson

Defence would be exempt from Whitehall spending cuts if Labour won the next election, Lord Mandelson suggested yesterday in a surprise bid to outflank the Tories in the ongoing row about the funding of the military operation in Afghanistan.

The business secretary said that Labour would seek to protect defence spending if it won the general election and that this contrasted with the stance of the Tories, who have made it clear that the Ministry of Defence is not one of the two departments that would be exempt from spending cuts under a David Cameron regime.


The claim is surprising, because Whitehall is braced for deep cuts in most departments after the poll, and Mandelson's main purpose may have been to intensify divisions among the Conservatives, some of whom believe Cameron should be doing more to protect the defence budget.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ju...meron-military

[Brenus]

"Also, benefit payments should be restricted to UK nationals only - not commonwealth + EU nationals":
So, I stop to pay taxes in UK?
Because actually I am pure benefit for UK.
UK paid nothing for my shool, training and skills.
I came here free of charge, all trained and ready, work in UK, pay for YOUR pregnant teenage, pay for YOUR school and YOUR army.

If I've got trouble in a foreign land, who will rescue me? UK or French Embassy/army? Guess...

The cost of social benefit is due to the english Natives, not on the Polish, Indians and others who just work hard...
You don't find much Indian/Pakistaneese girls pregnant do you?
Who benefit the most of the Social housing? The young white and English girls...

[Furunculus]

2% is either a) drastically too little OR b) at least twice what it needs to be. The UK needs to decide the role it wishes to have and to pay accordingly.

quite right Saemus, which is precisely why the Royal United Services Institute (created by Wellington nearly 200 years ago) created its discussion paper titled; A Force For Honour, asking two questions:

1) Is it desirable that Britain should wish to remain a Great Power?
2) If yes to the above, how can this be achieved?

That discussion paper is the first link in my sig and is an interesting read, in fact it should be mandatory reading for any Brit before they are allowed to spout bovine-excreta about peace and love.

[Beskar]

In the same vein, you say it is robbery to increase spending...

[Furunculus]

In the same vein, you say it is robbery to increase spending...

.............. and i get the same tired response every time i suggest it, even though:

1) it is well known that i consider Defence of the Realm to be the first duty of the sovereign nation-state.
2) Defence spending in Britain has fallen continuously since 1985 to 2010, from nearly 5% of GDP to nearly 2.0%.
3) i am happy to have Defence exist as a larger proportion of an overall smaller annual government expenditure.
4) because Defence occupies such a small part of annual government expenditure, the above is entirely achievable.
5) it would be achievable with little reduction in capability from other departments, precisely because their budgets have grown like a cancer since 1997, far in advance of the improvements that increase has brought. they are in short grossly inefficient, at a time when Defence spending can only be considered lean.

and somehow the obvious escapes even the sharpest of orgah tools.................






it's a honest-to-god mystery.

[Boohugh]

Louis, it may be true that defence spending has increased under Labour in real terms since they took power, but you have to look at it against the political background.

The Conservatives presided over defence cuts at the end of the Cold War because we had large amounts of obsolete equipment, the armed forces just didn't need all the equipment and manpower it had, so cuts made some sense (although there is an argument to be made they went too deep, especially considering what happened next).

Labour, on the other hand, has presided over at least one and eventually two concurrent high tempo military operations in theatres the other side of the world - of course it's logical defence spending has increased. The problem is it hasn't increased enough! From the website you listed, you can see that defence spending is still below 1992 levels (i.e. after the first Gulf war) in real terms and constantly falling in GDP terms, despite the armed forces having been far more operationally committed over a far longer period of time than they have been since probably the Korean war! There can be no question - the armed forces of the UK are underfunded for the role they have been assigned and the blame falls squarely at the feet of the Labour government (both for it's role and the underfunding!).

I'd also take anything Lord Mandelson says with a pinch of salt, he's not exactly the most trustworthy politician around. He even says at the end of that article that the decision on where spending cuts fall ultimately lies with the Treasury and they haven't said anything about protecting defence spending. Not to mention the MoD has already been told by Labour they need to start cutting spending and so this is already happening rather haphazardly without any long term plan because they aren't waiting to carry out a new Defence Review before doing it.

[Furunculus]

As ever, I always have a link for those interested. Note how the defense budget really did increase by 25% under Labour. Needless to say, that is 25% against inflation, and not in curency amount (which went up well over 50%). It went down under the Conservatives, by a whopping 25%. Or 1,5% of GDP, after which it stabilised under Labour.

I vain, I predict. Because on sheer stereotype, the 'defense vote' goes to the Conservatives, so the Tories reckon they can get away with cutting the defense budget (again!) and their electorate will never know it, under the spell as they are from stereotypes based on Tory robust defense rethoric. Which is all talk, instead of action.

It was called the post cold war peace dividend, and it was inevitable that since the evil empire had been defeated once and for all that people would want to spend public money on the finer things in (public) life rather than tanks. funny how your detailed analysis missed that one.

As to the Dark Lord himself, has it escaped your attention that Labour is promising jam tomorrow while you blithely ignore the fact that Labour just announced a massive cut, i.e. that Afghanistan would be funded from the core defence budget in contravention of all previous policy that active operations are funded by treasury appropriation. And this after a shrinking Defence budget (as both from %GDP and Defence inflation) during a period in which the forces have spent most of the last decade fighting two high-intensity foriegn wars. again, funny how your detailed analysis missed that one.

Since Labour in the past decade, unlike the disastrous decade before under the Tories, presided over massive economic growth, Labour was able to drastically increase the UK defense budget without raising it as a percentage of GDP.

Louis, you're priceless. You take the most patently ridiculous positions, and present them as if they were perfectly reasonable. It.......... just hilarious!

[Vladimir]

Louis, you're priceless. You take the most patently ridiculous positions, and present them as if they were perfectly reasonable. It.......... just hilarious!

Yes, but he does it with such flair that it leaves you wanting more.

[Furunculus]

Yes, but he does it with such flair that it leaves you wanting more.

just so long as you don't take what he says seriously.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am afraid I do not get the logic that the Conservatives increase military spending by decreasing it because of the end of the Cold War, and that Labour decreases military spending by increasing it because of Labour's very active foreign military policy.

just so long as you don't take what he says seriously.

Never take my word for anything.

Instead, rely on facts.


UK military spending when Thatcher took office in 1979:
5.2% of GDP

UK military spending when Major took office in 1990:
3,9% of GDP

UK military spending when Blair took office in 1997:
2,8% of GDP

In the twelve years since, under Labour, defense spending has stabilised percentage wise, and increased 25% in real amount, corrected for inflation. This is the most massive increase in defense spending since living memory.

This rubbishes at once the claim that the Conservatives merely cashed in on the 'peace dividend' after the Cold War ended in 1989. The vast bulk of the Conservative defense cuts had been made in the decade before the fall of the wall.

It is the Tories who presided over the UK defense cutback from Great Power to medium power. And it is Labour who drastically increased the budget again, to fund their policy of very active UK foreign military involvement.

In this current election, Labour's policy is to not cut back on defense. By contrast, the Conservatives have made no so commitment. Rather, the Tories look firmly set to decrease defense spending. As they always do. Because UK conservative governments have a proven track record of decreasing military spending.


Why do the Tories get away with always cutting on defense yet retaining their image of staunch protectors of the defense budget? Because the Tories realise that the 'defense vote' goes to the Tories anyway, based on Tory rhetoric that creates the impression of Tory commitment to defense. Track record and current policy intention show the exact opposite.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis, it may be true that defence spending has increased under Labour in real terms since they took power, but you have to look at it against the political background.

The Conservatives presided over defence cuts at the end of the Cold War because we had large amounts of obsolete equipment, the armed forces just didn't need all the equipment and manpower it had, so cuts made some sense (although there is an argument to be made they went too deep, especially considering what happened next).

Labour, on the other hand, has presided over at least one and eventually two concurrent high tempo military operations in theatres the other side of the world - of course it's logical defence spending has increased.

Naturally, one needs to take political background into consideration.

However, there is no Cold War at the moment either. Both the Tories and Labour in the past two decades made their defense policies in a post-1989 world. And in this new geo-political constallation, in the post-Cold War world, Labour increased the defense budget by a quarter, and the Conservatives decreased it by the same amount.

It is not a given that the UK should pursue a very active military foreign policy. It is a political choice, and this active defense policy has been Labour's choice, not the Tories'.

The problem is it hasn't increased enough!

A well-Italicised statement, for therein lies the rub indeed. Labour indeed has not accepted the full consequences of its very active foreign military policy. It is all fine and dandy to have 8500 troops in Afghanistan, plus Iraq, but it does come with a price tag one needs to be prepared to pay. These operations must be properly funded by a huge increase in spending. Or else either the success of the operations will be compromised and troops will suffer needless casualty, or the general defense budget will suffer.

This underfunding of British' military operations have given the Tories the chance to create the misconception that Labour decreases UK's military expenditure. That Labour is the party of defense budget cuts.

This is not true. The very reverse is true. Labour in the past decades has been the party that increases defense spending, and the Tories the one that drastically reduces it. And they will do so again.

a shrinking Defence budget (as both from %GDP and Defence inflation) during a period in which the forces have spent most of the last decade fighting two high-intensity foriegn wars. again, funny how your detailed analysis missed that one.

I am afraid this is incorrect.

British defense spending has risen enormously since 2000. Yes, indeed corrected for inflation. Labour in the past decade has overseen the most drastic UK defense spending increase in decades. The UK is third behind only the US and China in global defense spending.

Moreover, to fund the UK's two pricy high-intesity conflicts, the Treusury Reserve has provided an additional £9.5Bn on top of the Defence Budget to cover operational costs. Add in pensions and numerous other non-MoD costs, and it is clear that Labour, far from cutting on defense, has drastically increased the defense expenditure burden of the UK.

[Beskar]

Times like this, I want to marry Louis.

[Vladimir]

Strike may have a problem with that.

[Furunculus]

I am afraid I do not get the logic that the Conservatives increase military spending by decreasing it because of the end of the Cold War, and that Labour decreases military spending by increasing it because of Labour's very active foreign military policy.

UK military spending when Thatcher took office in 1979:
5.2% of GDP

UK military spending when Major took office in 1990:
3,9% of GDP

UK military spending when Blair took office in 1997:
2,8% of GDP

In the twelve years since, under Labour, defense spending has stabilised percentage wise, and increased 25% in real amount, corrected for inflation. This is the most massive increase in defense spending since living memory.

This rubbishes at once the claim that the Conservatives merely cashed in on the 'peace dividend' after the Cold War ended in 1989. The vast bulk of the Conservative defense cuts had been made in the decade before the fall of the wall.

It is the Tories who presided over the UK defense cutback from Great Power to medium power. And it is Labour who drastically increased the budget again, to fund their policy of very active UK foreign military involvement.

In this current election, Labour's policy is to not cut back on defense. By contrast, the Conservatives have made no so commitment. Rather, the Tories look firmly set to decrease defense spending. As they always do. Because UK conservative governments have a proven track record of decreasing military spending.

Why do the Tories get away with always cutting on defense yet retaining their image of staunch protectors of the defense budget? Because the Tories realise that the 'defense vote' goes to the Tories anyway, based on Tory rhetoric that creates the impression of Tory commitment to defense. Track record and current policy intention show the exact opposite.

i have never said that tories increase defence spending, i wish they would, but the reality is i trust no politician with defence spending. all parties have a proven track record of decreased military spending in the last 80 years.

i have already credited labour with creating the most far-sighted Strategic Defence Review ever, and i am fully aware that the Cons chopped defence budgets far more than they should. The post cold war dividend is a fact, all i did was enter it into the blithely ignorant equations you are churning out for general consumption.

the britain is now, arguably, still a Great Power much as the definition is amorphous, the fact that we are not a world power has everything to do with decline of empire and the debt of two world wars.

the tories have never got away with defence cuts, at least not from me. labour has got the majority of my ire because they are the party in government during the period of my internet ranting.

British defense spending has risen enormously since 2000. Yes, indeed corrected for inflation. Labour in the past decade has overseen the most drastic UK defense spending increase in decades. The UK is third behind only the US and China in global defense spending.

Moreover, to fund the UK's two pricy high-intesity conflicts, the Treusury Reserve has provided an additional £9.5Bn on top of the Defence Budget to cover operational costs. Add in pensions and numerous other non-MoD costs, and it is clear that Labour, far from cutting on defense, has drastically increased the defense expenditure burden of the UK.

no it hasn't louis. it has risen in line with inflation. it has not risen in line with defence inflation. and it certainly has not risen in line with government spending, you know the one i am always banging on about, 2.2% of GDP etc, less than 3.5% of GDP etc. it has not been treated as the primary duty of the state, instead it has been treated like the red-headed step-child of government spending, evidenced by its continual decline as a proportion of government spending, by all parties.

the treasury reserve has never coverered all operational costs, worse it has in some cases been clawed back. to top it off, there has been a massive defence cut announced only last month when the gov't announced that afghanistan operational funding would be taken from the core defence budget. that is a CUT, as i have said before.
------------------------------------------------------
edit -

for the record, i have no expectation that cameron will increase defence spending either, regardless of having to clear up labour finances or otherwise.

labour spends high, but actively dislikes the military = x ammount
conservatives spend low, but like to court the defence vote = y amount

amount x and amount y are usually pretty similar.

my sympathy naturally lies with the tories, because i actively dislike any brit who actively dislikes britains military institutions, but i'm under no illusions that neither does anything but chop defence budgets.

[Furunculus]

Times like this, I want to marry Louis.

your cheer-leading is already clearly visible.

[Beskar]

your cheer-leading is already clearly visible.

You know that Louis makes a lot of sense.

You even agreed to it yourself that he was correct, however, you further comment that they should have spent more. Which goes in opposition to your earlier comments that it is basically all new labours fault for keep on clawing it back when it was the Tories which did the most damage.

[Furunculus]

You know that Louis makes a lot of sense.

You even agreed to it yourself that he was correct, however, you further comment that they should have spent more. Which goes in opposition to your earlier comments that it is basically all new labours fault for keep on clawing it back when it was the Tories which did the most damage.

they haven't done 'most' of the damage.

events dear boy, events - to quote a british prime minister

the end of the cold war, (where we spent 40 years deterring the might of the red army along with our allies), was always going to require a peace dividend. Keeping BAOR in germany and holding the G-I-UK gap was no mean feat, especially as it didn't give us a free pass from all our other global commitments.

i have never advocated a return to defence spending at a level of ~5%, or even 3.5% of GDP, what i have actually advocated is:
> a legislated peacetime minimum of 2.5% of GDP (which is what labour said they would attempt to maintain in the SDR 98)
> an annual review to see if we are in fact at peace, and if not to recommend the appropriate increase (currently at ~2,1% during wartime)
> a temporary hike above 2.5% to recognise to recover from decades of under investment (and the fact that we were fighting two foreign wars at once on a 2.2% budget)
> absolute recognition that ALL operational costs including attrition are paid for by the treasury (not the situation now)

and i will apologise to nobody for criticising labour for taking a further bite out of the core defence budget last month to fund afghanistan, especially when the defence budget itself has fallen 0.3% below the level labour said they would maintain.

[Subotan]

Btw what happened to our navy

[Brenus]

“It is the Tories who presided over the UK defense cutback from Great Power to medium power.”
It is so true that if the Argentineans would have attack the Falklands/Malvinas/Malouines few months after they did, the UK would have no Aircraft Carriers as Maggie had sold them to India.
The same Maggie, in cutting defence expenses obliged the destroyers Type 45 to be reduce in size with the consequence they couldn’t have all the AA defence needed. It cost UK the Sheffield.

So, who did the damage?

[Furunculus]

Btw what happened to our navy

Prior to SDR98 it consisted of 35 frigates and destroyers, in addition to 12 attack submarines.

SDR98 mandated a need for 32 frigates and destroyers, in addition to 10 attack submarines.

After SDR98 it quickly slipped to 28 frigates and destroyers, in addition to 9 attack submarines. (spot the baddy?)

In 911 they changed their mind and abandoned they best policy doc they ever made (SDR98) and created the "new2 chapter" where we needed only 25 frigates and destroyers, in addition to 8 attack submarines.

This has since dropped below their policy documents to about 22 frigates and destroyers, with a planned number of 7 attack submarines. (again, spot the baddy?)

And given the rate at which perfectly serviceable frigates are being sold off or put into "extended readiness" that could go as low as 17 escorts.

that is what has happened to the navy.

[Furunculus]

“It is the Tories who presided over the UK defense cutback from Great Power to medium power.”
It is so true that if the Argentineans would have attack the Falklands/Malvinas/Malouines few months after they did, the UK would have no Aircraft Carriers as Maggie had sold them to India.

The same Maggie, in cutting defence expenses obliged the destroyers Type 45 to be reduce in size with the consequence they couldn’t have all the AA defence needed. It cost UK the Sheffield.

So, who did the damage?

The FCO have the greatest blame for the falklands, for demonstrating little interest in keeping them to the Argentinians whilst showing every willingness to talk about the issue forever. no gumption, and talks won't lead anywhere, why not invade. The same maggie who did have the balls to actually take the falklands back.

Are those the same T45 ADD destroyers of which we were supposed to receive at least 12, and we now find 6? i wasn't aware that anyone had complained that 48 aster missiles with the option to retrofit another 16 wasn't enough..................?

[Boohugh]

Are those the same T45 ADD destroyers of which we were supposed to receive at least 12, and we now find 6? i wasn't aware that anyone had complained that 48 aster missiles with the option to retrofit another 16 wasn't enough..................?

Think he was probably getting confused and meant the T42's as he was talking about Maggie and HMS Sheffield. Although I'm not sure you can blame the fact Sheffield sank on it having fewer AA defences than originally planned Brenus, when the fact is the ship couldn't confirm it was actually under missile attack until they got visual confirmation about 5 seconds before it was struck, as the radar system just wasn't designed to detect fast moving, low flying planes or missiles because the main threat (the Soviet Union) wasn't expected to employ that sort of attack (note it was due to be upgraded however, so it's not like the problem had been ignored). All the AA defences in the world wouldn't have helped in that situation.

Regarding the Navy nowadays, as Furunculus has stated, they have been steadily shrinking despite there being no shortage of tasks set for them. The smaller ships haven't got off either, there are currently only 16 Mine Counter-Measures Vessels despite there being a minimum requirement of 22 as set out in the SDR (reduced from an initial number of 25) and the Navy has just been told to get rid of another one so will soon be down to just 15. That's 7 short of the minimum this government itself set out for their assigned tasks (and they have only got busier since invading Iraq in 2003).

Considering that 92% of UK trade (by volume) travels by sea and sea transport is the UK's third largest service sector, it seems absurd that any government should ignore the needs of the Royal Navy. They aren't asking for a massive blue water fleet that will take on another nation in a big old-fashioned naval battle because that just isn't likely - they are trying to create a navy that can 1) protect maritime trade routes, particularly the 9 strategic choke-points through which the vast majority of international trade passes and 2) can support littoral (coastal) combat operations, which are the most likely (e.g. Iraq invasion) but they aren't being given the resources to do that. Afghanistan is the exception in being a landlocked country far away from the sea and doesn't represent the most likely area of operation in the future (although that hasn't stopped the Navy from providing up to 40% of all UK service personnel operating there).

So to say that Labour supports the armed forces adequately when they have presided over this sort of mess beggars belief. I'm not saying the Conservatives have a better track record, but the Labour one isn't exactly glowing either - as always they have just managed to hide it fairly well with spin.

[Brenus]

“the fact is the ship couldn't confirm it was actually under missile attack until they got visual confirmation about 5 seconds before it was struck, as the radar system just wasn't designed to detect fast moving, low flying planes or missiles”.
Er, it is exactly what I said.
The info we’ve got at the time was due to a lack of space thanks to the reduction of budget thanks to Maggie (and the Berlin Wall was still solid), the Navy could install a tracking radar for this kind of attack (and the Exocet being a French Missile was not exactly ignored by UK. I think that USSR had the Kelt at that moment, not really a low missile, but still…) so it cost the Navy the Sheffield (yeap, Destroyer type 42) (and others). Knowing that the Argentineans had just a few of these missiles, imagine the result if they had waited the delivery of all the order…

And there is still the selling of the aircrafts carrier to India even before the new one to be ready?

[Furunculus]

“the fact is the ship couldn't confirm it was actually under missile attack until they got visual confirmation about 5 seconds before it was struck, as the radar system just wasn't designed to detect fast moving, low flying planes or missiles”.
Er, it is exactly what I said.
The info we’ve got at the time was due to a lack of space thanks to the reduction of budget thanks to Maggie (and the Berlin Wall was still solid), the Navy could install a tracking radar for this kind of attack (and the Exocet being a French Missile was not exactly ignored by UK. I think that USSR had the Kelt at that moment, not really a low missile, but still…) so it cost the Navy the Sheffield (yeap, Destroyer type 42) (and others). Knowing that the Argentineans had just a few of these missiles, imagine the result if they had waited the delivery of all the order…

And there is still the selling of the aircrafts carrier to India even before the new one to be ready?

defence procurement is always a mess, everywhere, to think otherwise is lunacy. Air Defence was never a priority for the Royal Navy in the Cold War, as its principle task was maintaining a huge Anti Submarine fleet to hold Soviet hunter-killer submarines behind the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, and thus ensure Operation Reforger could reach mainland europe to reinforce american troops in the event that 15,000 soviet main-battle-tanks rumble across the Fulda Gap.

you are talking about the T42's, not the T45's.

if you want another cracking example of a cock-up have a look at the italian/french horizon program; each country gets a grand total of two units. how's that for a return on 30 years of investment, the unit cost must be princely don't you think?

now that is an ADD disaster in waiting!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[edit]

defence cut of 15%:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalis...q-inquiry.html

[/edit]

[Beskar]

Would be interesting for Europe Union to form its own army. The combined effort would produce a super-power status armed forces which could rival America.

[Subotan]

Would be interesting for Europe Union to form its own army. The combined effort would produce a super-power status armed forces which could rival America.

YESSSSSSSS

[Boohugh]

Would be interesting for Europe Union to form its own army. The combined effort would produce a super-power status armed forces which could rival America.

In theory the idea is interesting, it would just be the next big stage of a process in defence procurement and cooperation that is already happening to some degree. The only problem is there would be no political agreement on when to use it so it would be pointless having in the first place!

Edit: Although like to add, pretty sure all the EU defence budgets combined still wouldn't rival the US one.