The UK is may be officially at war and the media ignore it!

With the UN you always have to look at the veto-wielding states. Russia, France, Britain and the USA would be onside, but China is always a loose cannon and may want to cause trouble.

Wouldn't China support this if the Russian are involved?

Why? They are not allies, and don't always vote the same way. China voted in favour of the motion to set up an international criminal tribunal investigation into the Flight MH17 air disaster over Ukraine, for instance; Russia vetoed it (obviously).

I agree, Article 42.7 appears to be drawn up so that States must make all the commitment of a war but there is no requirement for a declaration of war.

With the UN you always have to look at the veto-wielding states. Russia, France, Britain and the USA would be onside, but China is always a loose cannon and may want to cause trouble.

I haven't looked into the law surrounding this, be it other Treaty provisions or ECJ interpretations, but I think there are two reasons why this is incorrect:

(1) as far as I read Art 42.7, it occasions neither a declaration of war nor a commitment. It says that member states have an 'obligation' of aid and assistance. Duties under an obligation can be kept or broken. Granted, breaking the obligation would give rise to liability for a penalty, but it would also mean that the UK was neither 'at war' nor committed to going to war. I not aware of any compulsive sanction which could be used against the UK to compel it to go to war either.

(2) Art 42.7 makes no mention of having an obligation to commit to war - I believe that you have read war into the category of 'aid and assistance'. Art 42.7 is also qualified by 'This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.' Therefore, if it is not the policy of the UK to engage in combat operations abroad, at least without the assent of Parliament (a convention which seems to have been repeatedly asserted since 2010), then this provision cannot not be invoked to impose an obligation to commit to combat operations abroad.

I think that even a Parliamentary vote against helping the EU would violate the Treaties:

TFEU Article 24(3):

"3. The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area."

Such a violation might not be lightly forgiven.

It certaintly would. As far as I can tell, however, that observation bears no relevance to either of the points that I made.

Article 42.7 can only be understood in the context of Article 24(3) so although the points you made about obligations and the specific character of members states policies, may or may not be valid they are overridden by 24(3) when things get serious.

Do you have any citation for this interpretation? I find it rather surprising.

The extent of the obligation in this area of the FASP is defined by Art 42.7. Therefore, the obligation is the wording of the treaty. They have an obligation to be subject to an obligation to aid and assist etc. without prejudice to their national policies. Therefore, my original analysis still applies.

It would also be nonsensical to say that the obligation under A42.7 was without prejudice to their national policies, but then say that that qualification was 'overriden' by another provision (Art 24(3)), because there would be no reason to include the qualification in the first place. It would be meaningless and wholly ineffective, nothing more than wasted words. Therefore, rather than undermining the obligation, the without prejudice clause defines the extent of the primary obligation on the member states.

Nice reasoning but 24(3) applies to the EU as a separate entity, it is not a member state, and so once the EU Council has taken a decision to support a request under 42.7 I cannot see how a Member State can avoid being subject to 24.3 and hence to 42.7

So my interpretation would be that a Member State can minimize its obligation to another Member State under 42.7 until the EU Council takes a decision (by majority voting since 2014) at which point the luke warm State falls under a total obligation as in 24.3.

Here it is again: 24(3):

"3. The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area."

I was looking through a couple of legal texts on the treaties and they point to Article 29 of the TEU:

"Member States shall ensure that their national policies conform to the Union’s positions"

Which seems to wrap up the interpretation that if a state applies under 42.7, if the EU Council agrees then all Members are bound under 24.3 and should not have any national reason for exemption because of 29. If the EU goes to war then everyone must follow.

(ii) Competence-based reasoning: The Union is limited in the extent to which it can demand conformity with the "union's positions" and "union's actions" in this particular and very special area of CFAS policy, because the treaty provision in this regard is qualified. reading the provision, member states have not conferred power on the EU to demand action in response to an armed attack that prejudices national policies, and therefore they have no power to make such a demand.

At war with terrorism? We already knew that.

If you are suggesting that we are in a state of war with another state then I disagree; the Islamic State is neither a state nor a representation of Islam.

The EU can amend its competencies by a unanimous vote at Council.
.

The solidarity clause was introduced to avoid the reasoning that you are advancing.

What is the use of the EU if it cannot defend itself?

The French, Germans, Spanish and Italians are all on record as wanting the EU to have an independent defence posture.

Given these two factors I would guess that a failure of the British to show solidarity would seriously sour relations even if the pro-EU, anti-EU-Treaty Brits (ie: the pro-EU lobby) could legally wriggle out of any demands for action.

You'd think if this rule was binding that Tony Blair would have heard about it and wouldn't have had so much trouble with France opposing the Iraq war under Chirac. He could have forced all EU states to be involved in the war for freedom.

Anyway, since no vote of this sort has been passed, we are not at war or committed to war at the moment.

This thread is about the fact that the EU Treaties are about loyalty and solidarity. They state this in several places. The Commission and Council are always mentioning working together, acting as one. The Treaties also state clearly that security and foreign policy are EU competences.

At a first read through Articles 24.3 and 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union, as well as several articles elsewhere in the Treaties, say that EU countries should support each other loyally and with solidarity.

What you have succeeded in doing is to point out that a state that was determined to avoid solidarity and loyalty to the EU/to not be compelled beyond the extent of the treaty commitment to the EU which it has made could indeed avoid it. The UK could walk away from supporting French or EU action. You used legalistic excuses (because you opened with a legalistic argument) but, of course, a nuclear armed state can simply renege on any alliance and justify itself after the act. Any country that has sufficient power can renege on any international treaty.

So, yes, we are probably, at present, in full support of France and the EU according to the Treaties until we have a vote in Parliament that ignores the spirit of these Treaties. We can then weasel our way out of appearing treacherous by pointing out the "without prejudice" caveat in 42.7 etc.

It is interesting that the pro_EU lobby are disloyal wherever possible. It is probably the attraction of disloyalty to the UK that makes them pro-EU in the first place. Anti-EU people are loyal to the people of the UK and would be horrified at being drawn into an EU war.

The Lisbon Treaty was only signed in 2009 and the national vetoes were only finally removed last November.