Interesting thread but strange replies. The claim of UK being a primary defender of Europe is at best questionable and misleading at worst it's deceptive. (small thread) /1 https://twitter.com/KeohaneDan/status/1313724659049926656

For one, those arguments rarely explain which strategic assets precisely are the ones which either can't be replaced or which are a necessity to EU's defence capacity. /2

Second, it doesn't really explain whether or why it is assumed that UK could - even with a nice deal (one which doesn't undermine strategic assets of EU) - actually maintain their assets. /3

Defence capacities are expensive, very expensive. Not just in their creation but in their maintenance. That doesn't just mean you need the will, but you need to actually have the resources to fund them. /4

a) Any current option of Brexit will be a strain on those resources. The assumption that the defence budget gets out unscathed is outright naïve. b) UK is internally under enormous stress, who is to say that UK in it's current form will survive the next ten years? /5

c) There're natural limitations of collaboration w/ non EU countries. Fair enough, main platform is the NATO, but still, leaving EU means that certain areas or certain type of collaboration (e.g. think about Galileo) isn't feasible. That also limits the value as "defender". /6

Third, it's plainly assumed that other countries are neither willing nor able to replace UK's assets in the medium and long term. Germany for example should be able to step in, at least it would be in principle able resourcewise. /7

Which begs the question whether they are willing to actually use those resources. The willingness has been in the best indeed limited which @stefanauer_hku also indicated in the thread. /8

It may be too optimistic, but the public discourse in Germany is also changing. Given the current pressures (e.g. tensions with Russia but also Brexit) there may be more of an incentive to step in. /9

Last but not least, why is it assumed that UK is actually willing to play this role or should be trusted that they would play this role in future. The whole Brexit negotiations don't illustrate them as particular trustworthy. /10

You may now say that I shouldn't extrapolate based on the current government, but consider this: a) the current crisis's arguably one of the political system (unsustainable settlement of devolution, political system not inclined to adjust to social change, political culture). /11

I'm not a fan of the government, but I'm not stupid enough either to assume another one would perform much different. The reason that May felt wasn't "lack of leadership" it was that (even flawed) compromise and adjustment to change isn't sustainable those days. /12

And looking at the divisions within UK and the still strong support for Tories, why should it be assumed that this tendency to further instability and micro-aggressions stops anytime soon? /13

Even if Labour comes to power and makes necessary changes, are those durable? How long would they last. None of the proposals (e.g. a vague federalisation) strike me as particular convincing or sustainable looking at the conflicting interests. /14

Putting all this points together: Yeah, there may be assets difficult to replace now but medium & long term there're options. Whether the assets of UK would be available in the near future and not deprived by de facto cuts, state paralysis or unwillingsness is questionable. /15

Just tagging in @warmatters and @APHClarkson. 16/16