Just a moment...
www.euractiv.com
  • mumblerfish@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10·
    3 days ago

    The European Union’s mutual defence clause, Article 42.7 of the European treaty, leaves the decision over what assistance each EU country provides up to national capitals. However, some EU politicians have recently pushed to define more precisely what Europe’s defence clause would mean if it were triggered.

    This should have been done when Russia invaded Ukraine. The Swedish PM at the time mentioned casually that this clause existed, because they had not yet shifted to join NATO yet. At that point EU should have made it clear with how they all interpret that clause. Sweden and Finland should have pushed for the EU coming togehter on this.

    • Riddick3001@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      At that point EU should have made it clear with how they all interpret that clause

      It’s become only relevant now because most European countries were under Nato art.5 protection, and there was no real doubt of interpretation.

      Now that the Nato art 5 is being eroded , the erosion of art 5 might trickle down to the European Defense Clause. So yes art 47 would need some reworking.

      On the other hand, EU and most individual membercountries should also have bi and/ or multi-lateral defensetreaties, so we should be good in most cases.