The UK government has reaffirmed its commitment to strengthening defence and security ties with the European Union, with Defence Secretary John Healey confirming that negotiations are ongoing for a closer UK-EU security pact within the NATO framework.
Speaking in the House of Commons, Dr Roz Savage MP (LD, South Cotswolds) asked whether the government intends to make a formal UK-EU defence and security agreement a policy priority.
“When the British public elected us as the new Government, we said that Labour will seek an ambitious new UK-EU security pact to strengthen co-operation on the threats that we face and will rebuild relationships with key European allies,” Healey said.
“With NATO as the cornerstone of our security in Europe, that is exactly what we are doing.”
Dr Savage raised further concerns about uncertainty over US foreign policy, questioning how the UK is working with European partners to reduce dependency on the United States for defence procurement.
“Given President Trump’s increasing unpredictability and shifting policies, can the Secretary of State share how the Government are strengthening defence procurement agreements with European partners to enhance our capabilities and reduce our reliance on the United States?” she asked.
Healey confirmed that discussions have already taken place with EU High Representative Kaja Kallas and Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, focusing on closer European defence collaboration while maintaining NATO as the core framework for security.
“When I spoke last week with High Representative Kallas and Commissioner Kubilius, that was exactly what I discussed: closer defence collaboration that will see a stronger European effort, with the UK and the EU, but within the NATO framework, which is the cornerstone for all of us to keep ourselves safe,” he said.
Labour MP Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) asked whether support for Ukraine would remain a major focus of discussions with EU counterparts, given Russia’s ongoing war of aggression.
“My constituents have steadfastly supported the people of Ukraine since Russia’s illegal invasion. Can the Secretary of State confirm that collective support for Ukraine will be a major focus of his discussions with EU counterparts and that under this Government the UK will always lead the way in stepping up support for Ukraine?” he asked.
Healey assured Parliament that the UK remains committed to supporting Ukraine and strengthening European security, with increased defence spending and coordinated military assistance.
“Indeed, I can. My hon. Friend makes an important point. This period is critical for Ukraine and for European security. I hope that he sees a UK Government who are stepping up to provide stronger support for Ukraine, coordinating allies to do more, stepping up on European security, and above all stepping up on defence spending,” he said.
Liberal Democrat Helen Maguire MP (Epsom and Ewell) urged the government to push for a stand-alone UK-EU defence pact, arguing that Britain risks being left behind in future European defence investment initiatives.
“We support the Government’s commitment to strengthening defence ties with our European partners, but they need to go further and faster to ensure that the UK does not get left behind,” she said.
“Has the Defence Secretary spoken with his counterparts in the EU about the value of the new stand-alone UK-EU defence pact, which will enable the UK to better influence decisions around new finance programmes, such as a rearmament bank to support defence investment across Europe?”
Healey confirmed that the UK is actively engaged in these discussions, reiterating his recent talks with EU officials.
“Yes. Last week I met with High Representative Kallas and spoke with Commissioner Kubilius, and that was exactly the subject of our conversations,” he said.
Unless we get some free stuff for this I see no point in doubling up on or contradicting NATO. The EU is politically diverse. The interests and defence concerns of countries as diverse as Ireland and The Baltics is too great. Bi-lateral, customised agreements are better and would bypass all the nonsense bun fights of lowest common denominator politics.
There is a reason the EU does trade and not security, Brussels should mind its own business and leave security to nations states.
Two are linked. There are a lot of EU regulations that would either have to be met by any UK security actions and vice versa. Freedom of movement across borders for example. What about the movement of supplies? How would EU law affect military operations? I’ve put this as the UK having to have an agreement with the EU rather than the other way round because most relevant issues would involve UK troops operating inside the EU rather than EU troops in the UK. Any production or purchasing agreements for military equipment or supplies – same thing, covered by both UK and EU regulations – these would also need to have an agreement in place. Bilateral defence ties would be good, but would still have to be made in accordance with EU rules – easy for UK, but dealing with an organisation covering a lot of different nations – harder.
The Best opportunities To Earn $22,000/Month. We all spend a lot of time on social media every day – Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, and the list goes on. If you’re used to getting a lot of likes or comments, or if you’re great at motivating others through your posts, you might want to consider turning this into a profession. It appears unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it…
HERE →→→→ 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐂𝐨𝐦
I make up to $220 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $100h to $220h… Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now I am hoping I could help someone else out there by sharing this link.Try it, you won’t regret it!.
HERE→ 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟕.𝐂𝐨𝐦
Well aside from the mutual defence, the obvious “free stuff” is that without a defence pact the U.K. defence industry is excluded from the majority of new EU defence funding programme, worth hundreds of billions of Euros.
thought we were anyway unless we let the french steal all the cod?
Earning over $15k monthly through a simple online job has been a game-changer for me. Last month alone, I earned $17,529 by dedicating just a few hours online. If you’re looking to increase your online income, you can start earning more cash by following the instructions provided here…
Open This——➤ 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
Nope, most EU countries and the EU itself don’t favour tying the security treaty to revisions to the economic one, it’s just Macron.
We have two possible outcomes with regards to the European SAFE fund:
1) sign a security treaty and be able to supply 35% max of the content for any procurement initiated by 2 EU/EEA states.
2) obtain special status like Norway, pay into the programme and be able to co-initiate procurements (with at least 1 EU country) and provide up to 100% of the content.
Lose-lose scenario.
Yes, without it our defence industry loses access to hundreds of billions of Euros of contracts from new EU defence funding programme.
Then the UK defence companies need to pull their fingers and start producing top tier equipment at a price that undercut the competition.
That won’t matter if the EU restricts the use of their defence spending programme to those involved in it.
I posted just above on this. But don’t forget, even if programme funds can’t be used on UK or UK-part equipment, this fund is €150bn. The collective defence budgets of EU countries is much more. So if (say) Poland wanted to buy Rafales and Typhoons for €5bn per deal, it’d borrow from the EU fund for the Rafales (as they meet the content requirement) and use its own defence budget to buy the Typhoons (as they don’t, with 37% UK content).
Doesn’t matter if they produce the best if the fund doesn’t allow its money to be spent on it 🤦🏻♂️
They didn’t buy much of anything from us anyway although we did end up being forced to buy somewildy overpriced Frcnh junk.. Tying ourselves to these freeloaders just makes things worse.
What French junk have we bought?
Tango Man is certainly putting the Cat amongst the Pigeons !
V.A.G and BMW must be worried too.
Still if it leads to a unification of European states then the combined armed forces will certainly be a major force to be reckoned with.
Maybe we all should reclaim the Colonies.
It’s already on the cards with CANZUK
We are even looking to bring the Americans back to the empire after a 250 years gap 😀
47 may be the last president before America resorts back to a constitutional monarchy. We will make Harry the Duke of America 😀
Maybe this is what The Donald means by Make America Great AGAIN.
He wants to go back to before 1776
The United Kingdom of GREATer American and Great Britain 😀
Making America grate again.
I say if the EU wants a security pact then it can do it along side single market access, refugee returns Agreement and a customs Union otherwise I don’t see the benefit for the UK. They already excluded us from their defence fund.
If we are building a framework inside NATO then it should be with the JEF countries or maybe Germany France and Poland.
The last thing we need is Brussels poking its nose into anything useful but bringing nothing to the party and opening another gateway for Hungary, Slovakia and other Russian client states to undermine European security.
The UK is one of the few security exporters in the world. It’s time to use that power just like the EU does on trade and China and the US are doing on everything.
Brussels has been fucking us since 2021 on trade to get a better deal for some French fisherman, why would we suddenly be best buddies now.
I don’t want to agree with JD Vance but it’s hard to argue that the EU along with Canada are not a bunch of free loaders. Both screwed us on trade deals post Brexit where the thought of “friendship” was scoffed at by both sides now both look to us to pick up the slack their bad relationship with the USA has caused.
Meanwhile we are rapidly getting sucked into more wars in the Middle East to placket Trump world while using all our own political capital to get a better deal for Ukraine and now the EU wants to leverage our diplomatic and military capability for its own security while steadfastly refusing to discuss trade enhancing measures that might benefit the UK.
It seems that it is uk gvt that wants a pact. EU just excluded uk fron defense fund.
Doh a defence pact gives us access to the new EU funding programme. Canada and Japan have such pacts, meaning they have full access, whereas we don’t. Seems perfectly reasonable attitude from the EU.
So does S Korea.
My question. What did those countries have to give away as a condition of sealing these agreements beyond signing some pieces of paper?
I ask this due to the obvious EU desire to access fishing areas as a “concession.”
We were naughty and voted to leave. How many pounds of flesh in retribution?
I can see Labour giving way easily.
Its a defence and security pact, so I’d imagine the countries have to give some defence and security guarantees – which I doubt includes fishing unless the devious French have trained haddock to carry limpet mines for attaching to ships hulls 🤔
We shall see.
Just to clarify, I get that a non EU member cannot access without an agreement or EU membership.
That is only right, even if we need to contribute financially.
It is what conditions we as the UK might need to pay compared to Asian nations.
What sort of defence and security guarantees would you envisage being adequate- maybe putting troops in EU countries perhaps ? or maybe providing funding, intelligence, training and hardware to a country in mainland Europe whose instability would present a major threat to the EU , something like that perhaps?
I personally think there are those in the EU that have still to forgive our audacity in leaving their little cabal , and , in my opinion, yes, they would most definitely seek as much petty political & financial gain as possible before ‘allowing’ us to join this new little EU venture.
The UK government should play the same politics and exert similar pressure on those EU governments that to seek to undermine their own security by ignoring the considerable security our forces still provide.
Migrant return could easily be made a condition of a Security Pact given National Security Concerns(tm) does trump free movement & refugee rights etc. The UK government doesn’t play that card and perhaps it’s not the time to look into it.
Fishing rights would be a massive stretch, but a half decent delegation on the EU side and a weak one on ours could be disastrous.
We should be able to offer guarantees in exchange for a good chunk of that EU Defence Fund, but only to Member States as of the date of signature, having the EU extend our protection on our behalf should be a red line.
UK forces based in non-NATO EU countries would need to be paid for by the EU or individual states if those states make a request.
Tactical nuke development and deployment should be paid for and requested by individual states, the EU making requests on behalf of states for such a sensitive subject should also be a red line.
30bn of that EU fund (on top of our 2.5% moving to 3.00% as it would count as aid?) would fill a lot of gaps, give political breathing room and allow actual forces growth.
The insanity is we do have a defence agreement it’s called NATO…that’s why we have no specific agreement with the EU, because it was never needed before.. now..well I think it is.
what defense fund? there is no magic money tree since there is no fund.
there is a a €800B plan for various loans. more specifically €150B loan option will be garanteed by the EU and the remaining €650B are just loans that each country can take out and it won’t count to their individual debt limits set up by the EU,
wether that money will ever be borrowed is not certain and just a provison, ultimately it will depend on each country if and how they plan to increase their individual defense budgets (ie no defence increase or borrow more or reduce other expenditures to fund increase)
Try Google. I’d post a link but it’d be in moderator limbo for months…
Do the obvious – rejoin the EU and correct the massive economic damage done by the deluded Brexit idea. Now that Trump/America cannot be trusted it also makes security sense for the UK.
Pssst, You spelt your old name wrong this time. Just sayin !
Brexit officially had nothing to do with defence, as NATO is not a trade organisation, however the EU wants to play silly buggers regarding defence in a childlike way of getting their own back!
However thanks to Trump NATO as such is rapidly losing credibility
Don’t mention it… jjsmappliece !
Exactly.
No thanks.
Yeah the predicted damage from Brexit… mass unemployment, housing crash, finance leaving the City for Europe, collapse of Stirling, rampant gonorrhoea outbreak, etc… still waiting ⏳
I think Brussels and the EU should be kept at the end of a very long broom handle. They can’t be trusted to stand up to the plate when it counts.
You don’t think the Poles would stand up to Russia?… clearly you don’t know many of them…
You’re confusing defence and security pacts with operationally military control 🤦🏻♂️
EU encroachment to the East has fueled Russian paranoia to the extant that Russia is at war with Ukraine. We should have no part whatsoever in risking armageddon merely to expand the Evil Union in its search for Lebensraum. If the EU wants more territories in the East let it fight for them on its own.
I feel that current American adminisation is doing so much damage to trust and therefore Western defence it will take a decade to repair. We Europeans will have learnt a lesson – self-defence – mutal and collective SD that is not tied in with EU dogma and small print. The foundation is there even with withdrawal of the large American slice and we rename NATO as Northern Allies Treaty Organisation so we keep splendid Canada, Greenland and Iceland in the family.
Europe is our immediate neighbour, far more so than the US alongside which we are merely an outpost for them. We no longer have an empire to defend so it makes enormous sense to bind ourselves defensively to Europe, bearing in mind we already do under NATO. We need to plan around the possibility if not probability that the US will become less of a reliable partner. Prior to B***** (to raise the dreaded word that seems to exercise the zenophobic BritNats so much) we were part of the European conglomerate. Since then of course we have been excluded from EU initiatives, hardly suprising really. Our immediate interest is despite the dreaded B***** still with our close neighbouring states and any threat to them inevitabky affects us. NATO can exist without the US, especially once we all build up our forces to counter the loss of US backup. Europe collectively is bigger than Russia and also the US so the more we work together the safer we will all be. It isn’t as if the reliable oven-ready deal with the US ever came to fruition anyway.
I became a reluctant leaver of the EU as it was clearly an undemocratic protectionist club with an ever shrinking share of world trade, which seems unable or unwilling to adjust to a more competitive age. The economic comparison for example between the EU and the US is stark with the latter dynamic, innovative, entrepreneurial and growing. We are now witnessing the EU’s Crown Jewels, the German car industry being overtaken by China’s.
Those are the hard facts for Remainers to swallow.
However, you can’t choose your neighbours so to be pragmatic we do need to support Europe but we need to avoid any significant entanglement with the dead hand of the EU.
That requires careful statesmanship to navigate the current international scene but currently I do not see Russia as capable of running through Western Europe with its conventional forces even if the US offers no support. The U.K. and France can offer enough of a nuclear deterrent in the event that Mr Putin wanted to exert the ultimate level of blackmail.
The near hysteria from some quarters of imminent war is therefore probably overstated but we and the rest of Europe need to get ourselves together to offer a far more robust deterrent to Mr Putin who as the classic bully would avoid tangling with an opponent that can hit back hard.
Fortunately we can outside the EU do what we wish to make things happen more quickly but it is not so easy for EU member states and the Dutch are less than keen to say the least on the proposed EU defence fund so it is far from clear what is going to happen until the EU paymasters, Germany say so.
That France wants to use fishing access as a bargaining chip when allegedly the freedom of Europe is at stake suggests our allies across the channel are also still bitter about a vote that took place some 9 years ago.
Our leaders need to stay above that petty political pressure and engage constructively with the EU and we do have leverage with a powerful military by European standards.
For me choosing between the EU or US is the same as deciding whether to be eaten by a crocodile or shark and so far Mr Starmer has wisely chosen neither and long may that continue.
That was the European conglomeretate that stole £149Bn net from UK taxpayers over 40 years or so (in contributions to its corrupt schemes) and forced us to run a £90Bn annual trade deficit with them with its counter productive trade barriers and regulations. The EU had 30% of World GDP in 1980 and reduced this to 15% by 2020, in contrast the US dropped from 25 to 24%. The EU is an economic catastrophe that was dragging us down with them. All the UK got in return was to be told that we were bad Eurpoeans and endless lying from traitorous Remainers.
No No No but silly Bollocks will undoubtedly say Yes Yes Yes.
The MOD has always done as much as it reasonably can to ensure that military procurement is not critically dependent on any one country to such a degree as to constrain freedom to operate. That has become increasingly difficult as a result of decades of government penny-pinching though (and consequently whatever is the opposite of economy-of-scale). The only reason that the prospect of US disengagement is putting the cat among the pigeons to such a degree is that we have indeed been free-riding on capabilities that the US provides to a greater extent than is reasonable. The difference in %GDP expenditure here versus the US illustrates this fairly clearly. It is not a problem that is going to be meaningfully impacted by any additional defence pacts. If we want to restore full-spectrum capabilities then we need to resume paying for them properly.
How about no?
But in all seriousness, we’d need to be getting something in return. And it must come with some conditions, especially for our nearest neighbour Ireland, to step-up defence funding. Ireland is a serious weak spot that I fully expect Russia and other hostile actors to exploit in coming years. Naval priority to police their large EEZ, along with a basic air policing squadron. Highest GDP in EU yet (I think) lowest defence spending of barely 0.4% of GDP at one point.I know they’ve pledged to increase, but need to go further and faster.
Defence matters are still areas where the nations have primacy, not the EU institutions, so no even if an agreement was made there’s no legal mechanism to force a member state to adjust their chosen defence spending. Frankly I’d be more concerned about the Russian puppets like Hungary.
German foreign minister quoted as saying a European Defence Union is only a matter of time. UK+EU+Norway+?
Oohh the new order forced on everyone by MAGA really makes me want to go aaarrrgghhh..it’s all very vexing. Mainly because I think with a MAGA led US pushing and prodding from the west and even aiding and abetting an aggressive Russia from the east, the EU is probably going to solidify into a quasi neo European empire with a centralised military and foreign policy function. This is very good for European power, not what the US wanted ( it wants a weak internationally passive Europe not a competitor) and a right pain for UK decision making. The UK has some serious decisions to make…because it has lots of options.
But the key drivers are:
1) Russia sees the Uk as essentially enemy number one, but also an enemy that can potentially be isolated through political warfare.
2) the UK sees its special relationship with the U.S. as core to its interests, but the U.S. wavers between Luke warm, ambivalence and sometimes even a bit political hostility. But most importantly possibly sees more value in keeping Russia happy ( our avowed enemy) than the UK.
3) The UK has never been easy with the idea of even a sudo European superstate and it’s very likely we will soon be living next door to a pan European power, with its own fiscal, monetary, trade, foreign and defence policy as well as a unified armed armed forces. That is to be Frank still a bit pissy that we left.
4) the U.S. is going to be pretty hostile to that European Superstate.
So what does the UK do ? I think in this case geography has to trump cultural preferences and we have to get closer to the EU foreign policy and defence wise as well as trade, while at the same time not burning to many bridges with the U.S. Because I think unfortunately for a number of reasons NATO is now essentially the walking dead and unlikely to be meaningful much longer.
1) sail along in grand isolation and try to ignore everything
2) double down on an alliance with the US..which would create real and possibly significant geopolitical and geostrategic tension with Europe.
3) form a closer relationship with the EU, including closer trade and a defensive Union, this will piss off the U.S. no end
4) try to navigate between the EU and US and be a bridge.. keeping NATO going etc…the problem here is if it does all fall apart the risk is every dislikes you and you have a forced isolation with the EU seeing you as a U.S. stooge and the US sees the Uk as just another European issue to be stamped on.
Bullet points are such a bore.
Sort of reminds me of a Church Sermon.
Well it’s a nice easy way to put your point across, sorry it’s boring but you can after all choose to not read them 😉
Does the EU have a common foreign policy – if so how does it back it up militarily if there is no common EU army.
I believe Marcon offered France’s seat on the UN security to become an EU seat a few years ago – obviously long game for their own gain and self importance as that would ensure a common EU policy and by association a common EU army to implement it – with France at the head.
I know that offer was never taken up but I’m not sure where that ‘offer’ now lies and I’m unsure how that offer was received by other countries in general.
I’ve never really accepted the ‘close bond’ between the UK & the USA – two country separated by a common language. It’s had it’s peaks and troughs since 1945 dependant on the incumbent president , it seems however it may finally by drifting apart – if indeed it ever truly existed.
By the same token for a European country I’m not sure how close we are to central European politics and opinions.
I suppose it all boils down to how common our foreign policy it to USA’s vs. Main European countries- but historically it would fall more into the USA sphere- maybe that’s about to change?
Indeed I think the Uk has some very hard decisions to make to be honest.
The UK is facing what the USA is dealing with. The mainland europeans want all the benefits with none of the costs.
Except the UK doesn’t have much to offer.
Don’t overestimate the weight of the UK.
A lot of people in this comment section are a bit too full of themselves and think the UK is superior to all European nations, including the union of those European nations.
Are you that crazy?
I find the idea of a U.K. E.U. defence pact very frustrating. We have defence deals with almost all european countrys. Not including NATO. We already extend our nuclear umbrellor over europe. We have fought on and for europe since vercingetorix. We honour our commitments. Why do we need to sign a defence agreement with a political entity. Who want to tie it to fish. When we had Brexit we voted not to leave europe but to leave federal europe. Why would we trust a failed german defence minister to save europe. Incidently im an ex cold war warrior who beleives in european unity. just not this one.
For a pact between the UK and the EU to have effect both parties need a strong sense of their own identity, strengths, weaknesses and threats. The UK has survived the SNP’s attempt to destroy it and through Brexit has embarked on a program of self knowledge. We have voted in a labour government which, to the chagrin of the socialists, is a national social democratic government in all but name. Hence the ‘red tory’ jibes from the left wing. My impression is that the govt has a good understanding of our strengths and weaknesses: we are a desperately unhealthy nation – bodily and spiritually. They are aware of our vulnerabilities and are enacting pragmatic policies. By contrast I see the EU as a rudderless ship, unsure of its purpose now that the world is not so peaceful. It’s good that Starmer ( with Macron) is taking a lead – something he could only do because we are not in the EU club; and its good that Merz and the Christian democrats are again the leading force in Germany. If the UK, FR and GY can coalesce as a cultural, economic and military core ( perhaps with Poland and Italy) we could see a European Defence Union rather than the EU become the senior and decisive political voice of Europe. The EU started to fail when it became too big to manage itself and lots of smaller states saw that they could get more out of it than they put in.