The United Kingdom’s contribution to European security will endure regardless of whether a formal UK-EU security pact is signed, Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman told MPs this week—warning that political disputes, such as those over fishing rights, should not be allowed to derail critical cooperation on defence.
Speaking at the Defence Committee’s oral evidence session on 1 April, Chair Tan Dhesi MP raised the issue of divisions within Europe and delays in finalising the long-anticipated security pact between the UK and the EU. Reports from France and elsewhere have indicated that broader political grievances—particularly surrounding fisheries—have complicated negotiations.
“If that UK-EU security pact was not signed, do you envisage that the UK’s contribution to European security would begin to wane?” Dhesi asked.
Freedman was clear in his response. “Europe is our continent and European security is our interest. That will not change,” he said. While acknowledging that a failure to move forward with the pact would be disappointing, he insisted that the UK’s fundamental security priorities would remain unchanged.
“When you put the fisheries issue against what is at stake on the security side, it would be tragic if one was allowed to influence the other,” he said. “I would concentrate on keeping this as a separate issue.”
The professor, who served as a key strategic adviser to multiple British governments, stressed the UK’s already deep defence ties with non-EU European states, particularly in the northern tier, such as Norway and the Baltic nations. “Not all of them are members of the EU. It would be much better if we could use this [pact] to reinforce our relationships with so many of the key players in Europe that are members of the EU,” he added.
Committee Chair Dhesi agreed, stating that “solidarity should be the order of the day rather than political posturing and short-term gains on fisheries and so on.”
The hearing concluded with thanks to Professor Freedman for his contribution, which Dhesi said had “significantly enhanced our inquiry into the UK’s contribution to European security.”
The UK has consistently reiterated its commitment to European defence, even after Brexit. While not a member of the EU, the UK remains a nuclear power, a leading NATO ally, and one of the top military spenders in Europe. With the war in Ukraine ongoing and US policy potentially shifting under a future Trump presidency, observers see the UK-EU pact as a vital next step in formalising cooperation.
But for Freedman, even in the absence of such a deal, Britain’s strategic imperative remains clear: “European security is our interest. That will not change.”
Freedman is one of Britain’s foremost strategic thinkers and served as Professor of War Studies at King’s College London from 1982 to 2014. He was a key foreign policy adviser to successive UK governments and was appointed to the Iraq Inquiry panel in 2009. Known for his analysis of nuclear strategy, international conflict, and the evolution of military doctrine, his views continue to shape defence debates at the highest level.
Just throw away our leverage, what a brilliant idea.
I’m guessing Freeman is not quite the strategist that is claimed 😀
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250$/h + daily 1K !!! Start now making every month extra $6000-$22000 or more by just doing an easy online work from home. Last month i have earned and received $19650 from this work by giving this only 3 hrs a a day.Every person can now get this work and start earning online by.
For details check ——-⫸ WWW.WORKSPROFIT7.COM
Just what I was thinking.. the EU got away with ignoring the huge level of strategic assets the UK pays for and brings to the table because the came free with NATO membership.. now we need to be very clear any extra NATO security guarantees and access to UK strategic assets for the EU comes with a quid pro quo. Because actually the UK brings more very expensive strategic assets and global reach than any individual EU nation including France.
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250$/h + daily 1K !!! Start now making every month extra $6000-$22000 or more by just doing an easy online work from home. Last month i have earned and received $19650 from this work by giving this only 3 hrs a a day.Every person can now get this work and start earning online by.
For details check ——-⫸ 𝐖𝐖𝐖.𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐑𝟏.𝐂𝐎𝐌
Yes, the range of enablers is huge and very costly.
Which is why our front line looks so thin for the money.
As long as we don’t get kippered…..
Looks like FCAS is about to collapse, Dassault and France don’t like playing with others according to latest comments. France is so pro European it will blow up a EU UK security pact to get a few fishing boats in the channel and it’s just about to scupper European aviation for ever.
The Germans are about to learn the hard way for supporting France and booting out the UK.
All worked out pretty well for us.
Admit it Jim you are obsessed by the EU.
‘Booting out the UK’? With the possibly exception of Hungary everyone was sad to see us leave.
And it has indeed been a disaster for us.
Let’s be honest with ourselves the EU could have probably kept the UK in the EU if it had given a bit in the pre referendum negotiations.. it was very close and I suspect if the EU had show some flexibility it would have kept the UK onside.. as it was in its hubris it assumed it could give nothing and the UK would vote to stay in… the rest is history. Quit frankly that has been OK while the EU could hide behind NATO and was not threatened on all sides with powers playing 19c games of power… now it’s going to miss the nation that owned 50% or more of its strategic and global hard power.
Jonathan you’re right if course, our request to be able to put a brake on immigration into the UK when the flow was high was thrown back in our faces as breaking free movement within the EU. Of course several countries including Germany (I think) have unilaterally taken control of their borders which shows you how blind the EU Comission is. Ww really need to be offshoring these illegal immigrants whilst their claims are heard then they can be sent back from there.
Von der Lyon said exactly that in the wake of Brexit. They know what they did wrong, Cameron should have been stronger. Too though in insisting on reform.
Interestingly essentially the very same lesson the British empire learnt with the American colonies and then its future possessions.
I mean booting us out of FCAS, the UK was in the program pre Tempest but post brexit the UK had to leave, this was the “punishment” Germany and France dished out post brexit.
The victim complex never ceases to amaze… it’s like leaving a club and suddenly feeling “punished” that you can’t access the club pool.
We left, that meant that, without further negotiations, we automatically fell out of any EU programs we where involved in. The fault lies with the Tories who wanted the hardest brexit they could get.
But hey, as long as you can make up this “punishment narrative” you can keep pretending the EU are the bad guys, and igonre the cluster that was the Tories Brexit.
The Tories.didnt want rhe hardest Brexit they could & the EU did indeed try to use any subversive mechanism they could to halt Brexit including intransigence on many mutually beneficial programs purely to spite. Whether that counts as punishment I don’t know and to be quite honest I don’t care.,but let’s not keep this pretence of UK bad EU good going any longer its both counter productive …and quite boring now tbh. It was 9 years ago, almost a bloody decade and this continual regurgitation is pointless.
@Grizzler
We where kicked out of mutual programs because they where EU programs. You leave the EU, you leave the Program. As I said, that’s like quitting a gym and then getting upset because you can’t use the stairmaster. The Tories might not have wanted the hardest Brexit (LOL! Where where you?) but their actions guaranteed it.
If you find it boring, by all means, stop talking about it. But don’t jump into an argument, make some pretty weak points, and then demand nobody argue with them because you think it’s boring and has been. As for it being counter productive: No it isn’t, because the EU remains a neighbour that we are doing business and defence with, and the tired old little England “bad EU” that Reform types like Mosely have been touting since the 1990’s only serves to undermine our relationship going forwards.
Then my apologies. On FCAS I agree with Dern but had misread your post as being about Brexit. Sorry
Just read the story on Defence Express, seems Dassault are not happy that all 3 partners have equal input. I think I saw it mooted on hear when France/Germany/Spain all signed up to the FCAS project that it would be doomed to failure because of the French have this thing where they like the lead on all joint projects and have to have the last word. Do we need anymore European partners? Personally I’d say too many cooks spoil the broth.
Don’t worry France will have a hissy fit and threaten to walk off over that, Germany will demand workshare and Spain will demand to not have to pay for it as they are poor and Mediterranean?
Yes meanwhile everyone from Canada and Australia to Saudi and India want into GCAP.
Even the USA was talking about joining last month before the F47 “Freedom Fighter” was unveiled and given Boeing’s track record it’s entirely possible the US has to buy Tempest one day.
The chances of the USA buying tempest is below zero.
India and Saudi can do one-neither are needed nor should they be anywhere near.
Well it’s true they are poor and Mediterranean.. and just a little bit more authoritarian than you would think.
Actually as NATO falters there does need to be a pretty serious negotiation.. in a possibly post NATO world the EU should not assume on the UK strategic deterrent as a nuclear umbrella, it should not assume on the 2 carriers and SSNs to provide the core of a European global power projection requirement.. access to our bases and world wide infrastructure.. all of these things are profoundly expensive and should not be considered a free gift for a future single EU military and foreign policy… its untold billions of resources and it needs to come at a balanced cost.
Jonathan 💯
I agree, we have no need of a European security agreement. The EU needs us, happy to have an agreement but it must be comprehensive and fix trade issues. The biggest security threat to the UK are the floods of refugees coming from France. A returns agreement should be part of any deal. Give the French their fishing rights, no one cares.
This is ridiculous. The EU is a major power right on our border and in any war will be one of our biggest allies, providing nearly 2 million personnel, 3 Carrier Groups. The EU doesn’t have big dreams of power projection far from their borders, their preocupation is Russia. Sorry, but it’s serious wishful thinking if you imagine the EU needs us.
It really does, future European security is not just based on facing Russia, it’s based on ensuring it can project significant power into key regions this includes the western Indian Ocean, Red Sea, gulf of Aden, Africa and the Antarctica.. the only European powers that are capable of power projection are France and the UK and the only way it will have adequate mass is if both France and the UK are playing ball. If it does not.. yes it can sit on its Tod defending against Russia.. all the while the other great powers slowly squeeze its access to resources and markets.
Italy is increasingly capable of that, as the Vulcanos and LxDs come on line it’ll probably overtake the UK in terms of Naval Power projection. Pretty much the only thing the UK has that nobody in Europe has is the C17 fleet, and while we supported them, France did a lot of strategic airlift by chartering flights.
I’d say that to a united EU military the UK is a nice to have, not essential. The reverse is not true.
@ Dern
In reality Italy is very very good at what it does.. but it’s not a nation that has a wants to be able to globally project power..only France and the UK have the reach and actually will. You cannot change the cultures of the component nations of the EU and the predilection or not for great power politics..
@Jonathan
So which is it? Are we talking about a united Europe in the future needing to project power, or the proclivities of individual countries in 2025? But okay:
Italy is currently building a blue water navy. It’ll have a Carrier, and LHD, 3 modern LPD’s, and is taking delivery of a fleet of modern Logistics ships. In terms of power projection it’s only real gap will be that it’s oilers are pretty old. So Italy will soon have the reach.
As for the will: Italy already has maintained unilateral deployments in Africa, notably it’s mission in Somalia, where it maintained a force of about 4,000 troops at it’s height. Plus it’s been a regular member of Operation Atalanta (the EU’s anti-Piracy operations off Somaliland). So Italy also has the will.
But the EU is not a major power from a military perspective because those 2m personnel are drawn from countries with a wide range of political and historical views.
The Spanish and Italians do not seem at all worried about the current situation given their level of defence spending and the Dutch voted against the proposed EU defence fund. Hungary is pro Russian and there are other Eastern European nations with Russian sympathies.
The EU is therefore hamstrung as a protectionist federation with a shrinking share of world GDP whilst nation states power ahead.
In the context of defence Europe (not the EU) needs the U.K. and our defence is as always linked to ensuring no one nation dominates the continent. We all need to forget BREXIT and agree a deal if that is in everyone’s interest but personally I would like to see a genuine eNATO emerge without the dead hand of the EU being involved.
You can pretend that the EU isn’t moving towards nationhood all you want, but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Nobody claims it won’t be painful, but that’s just the way if the world.
Like it or not, the EU is slowly turning into a security power and we will have to deal with it.
Jim I care about fishing rights and twice before the fishing industry has been sold down the river. The EU has an extremely poor record on protecting fish stocks with countries such as France and Spain overfishing there own waters and then pushing hard for access elsewhere. We are being taken to court by the EU because of our increased protection of Sandeels would you believe. The Danes use them as fertiliser.
It is the height of pettiness of some EU countries to link fisheries with more serious matters such defence when they should be linked to trade discussions.
I actually think we should negotiate with the Europeans to expand our nuclear umbrella beyond just NATO, but they should pay a proportion of the acquisition and operating costs – but the deal is we MUST use that money we save on conventional defence (Increase Army back to a true division, RN up to proper blue water numbers, I’m sure the Crabs want more jets…) and we buy European / UK equipment first unless it doesn’t exist. So we look for a win win win scenario.
Micron wants his PANG and Nuclear umbrella paid for by EU under sovereign French control.
As well as obviously French primacy in defence technology!
The UK is the only nation that’s has put its nuclear deterrent under NATO control as the USA also does not do this. The best route for NATO and the EU is having an enhanced British and French capability which are both extended across the EU with all three nations providing dual code tactical weapons to major EU countries.
The EU can easily pay towards this. The funds should go to Britain and France to both operate 5 SSBN’s allowing a minimum of three at sea at all time and Britain acquiring 50 tactical nuclear weapons. This could be done using the existing storm shadow missile which would allow any operator of either the Gripen, Rafale or Tyhoon to potentially use it.
By integrating onto Storm shadow this can be done very quickly and very cheaply.
The weapon does not have to be a hypersonic cruise missile or launched from a stealth plane. Storm shadow has proven more than capable of penetrating Russian air defences and ultimately this weapon is a bluff to be added on to series of other bluffs as part of an over lapping deterrent posture. It needs to be minimally credible and cost effective not gold plated and 100% assured.
4 SSBN’s only guarantees one at sea, 3 at sea requires 12, what the USN is building in the Columbia Class.
Jon, Is NATO faltering? In what way? It is by no means certain that Trump will lead the US out of NATO.
Great more talking, meetings, focus groups. That is all MOD ever does now, that and release long winded statements that really say nothing at all. No new kit orders just wish lists and options. All the extra money that we are told the MOD is getting seems to go on contracts and consultants and nothing else. Let pray there is no need to use the Army in next 5 years as it will be a shocking mess.
I would love to know how fishing has got such a high importance and derailing so many things, when it’s an industry that is less than 0.1% of the countries GDP, including adding less than games workshop on its own. Plus we as a nation don’t really eat fish caught in our waters, we prefer stuff from Nordic waters. Just insanity.
Give Europe what they want in regards to fishing and use it to get a better deal for a UK industry that actually matters.