Senior figures from three major defence firms will give evidence to the House of Lords European Affairs Committee on Tuesday, 25 February, as part of an ongoing inquiry into the UK-EU reset, according to a media release dated 21 February 2025.
Taking place at 4pm in Committee Room 3, the session will be the first in a series of evidence hearings that focus on security and defence matters. “This session will focus on defence industry issues,” notes the release, with the Committee hearing from:
- Phil Siveter, UK CEO at Thales
- Oriel Petry, Head of Public Affairs at Airbus UK
- Jason Alderwick, Director of UK Government and Political Affairs at MBDA UK
Among the topics under scrutiny are:
- “The implications for the UK, as a non-Member State, of the EU’s growing role in defence industrial policy”
- “Whether recent policy shifts by the new US Administration on Ukraine and European security are likely to affect the EU debate about defence industrial cooperation with non-EU countries”
- “Whether and how greater UK access to EU defence industry initiatives might bring added value, to the UK and to the wider European defence industry”
- “Whether defence industry cooperation should be included in the UK-EU security pact that the Government is seeking”
- “The relationship between the UK-EU reset in the defence and security sphere and the UK’s bilateral defence and security agreements with EU Member States”
The Committee aims to explore how the evolving EU defence landscape impacts the UK now that it is outside the bloc, and what opportunities might exist for future collaboration. The evidence session will be streamed live and can also be viewed later on Parliament TV.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
With a lot of EU programs they need us and our tech more than we need them. Slow Eurofudge programs dominated by Franco-German arguments about workshare and technological leadership are absolutely not needed now. What is this really about? – Euro-tank – Euro-6th gen fighter – Euro-missile defence system The problem is that each military has such differing views on what it is for and therefore does and therefore what it needs to be. RAF will want an exquisite long range aircraft France will want a carrier capable jet Sweden will want a relatively cheap robust jet That isn’t one… Read more »
I digress, superb picture of the wonderful Point class transport ships, we should have all of them in service.
We do really need a pan European zero tariff free trade zone…the whole politics of the EU and the Brexit backlash from that has hugely screwed up what Europe really needs to complete and that’s a total free trade zone.
Before I get hit I’m not taking about the right or wrongs or Brexit,sovereign and the creation of a European superstate..I’m simply taking about the creation of a free trade zone…
The single market before they integrated it into the Lisbon Treaty became the EU.
Essentially yes the original purpose.
The European project was never “just” about trade, that was clear from the Treaty of Rome onwards, it might not have been sold by British politicians as such but that was their choice.
Or we could bite the bullet and rejoin the EU. Simples.
There are enough loons out there that recognise the damage of leaving the EU has done to the UK.
Plus point. We can return most boat people the same day.
Assuming of course that it was so simply that the UK alone gets to decide.
DB, I’m still waiting to see what your plan was for dealing with PIP Claimants ? You said that all PIP claimers were Frauds and that you had a plan to deal with them.
As for simply returning the boat people if we re-join the EU, I guess you missed the reasons that so many wanted to leave due to this very issue ?
People wanted to leave to “return the boat people” only to realise – now it’s too late – that we could do exactly that whilst in the EU and can’t do that at all, now we’re out. We’ve indulged the ‘logic’ of these people for ten years… Doesn’t seem to be working out. Time for the thinking people to have a go at the wheel.
It’s not the people, It’s the Political elite that have failed those who voted for Brexit. None of those people have changed their minds, it’s still simmering away.
I honestly don’t think as a nation we can have that debate again at preset. It’s to divisive.
I honestly don’t think the other members want the headache of a divided U.K. no matter what the U.K. decides, far too much time and energy was used up by the Brexit talks that could have been used for more important things.
I don’t think the EU would allow us back in, and I would understand their point of view, Brexit has broken any trust they had in us.
The EU won’t give us the same deal or terms we had before such as the rebate that Thatcher negotiated. We’d probably have to give the EU the fishing rights they’d want as well. Unfortunately the Conservative government never really delivered on the free trade agreements that they said. It would definitely be an enormous benefit to get some sort of trade deal but I don’t see us becoming full members again.
We could do lots things -hopefully this won’t be one of them- in any of its guises nor in any of its softly sofly implementations or mechanisms.
To be quite honest I am realy fed up of hearing the same old cap about why people voted out , and the regurgitated reasons identifying why and how we could & should go back in. The repetitive ‘arguments’ 9 years (yes 9!!) after the vote took place still being spouted on all manner of social media forums (such as this) about the whys and wherefores by the ‘just and the good’ are exactly why it was never implemented properly in the first place. I find the anguish still prevelant , quite pathetic and utterly pointless tbh.
We need to opt-in to the single market, by whatever political means is appropriate.
It’s worth about 2% to the economy.
Those questions are for the MOD and the government itself to define and evidence, including that of industrial capacity policy, why are we asking arms companies?
We could start a sensible convo in the defence budget.
The Tangerine has managed that in a few days in office!
Both Conservatives and LibDems are talking about 3%…
Discuss now that this not an each Cham er discussion but a mainstream one!
I honestly think that we will now see a 2.5% for next financial year and 3% as the target for next parliament..essentially the Lib Dem’s have given starmer some political gold..if he can have a cross party discussion to agree that they all go into the next election with a 3% defence pledge it completely depoliticise it. Essentially Starmer can go to Donald on Thursday and say: 1) 2.5% next year and that he will personally guarantee a political consensus that all the major parties go into the next election with a 3% pledge. 2) firm order for 30 more… Read more »
I dont think we should be bowing to the Tangerine’s whistle. I think the US needs to be told politely and firmly that they have treaty duties and an expectation to support their allies. Thats point 1. Point 2 is that we will be moving to 3%, aiming to get to 2.5% this year and will be focussing on hard power So increase manpower so RN can keep both LPDs in service, order more type 26 frigates and another batch of type 31s. Either get Aukus SSNr under construction asap or order a second batch of 3 Astute class. RAF-… Read more »
Jon, most think we won’t get 2.5% until 2030 or even a year or two later.
Jon, we should sell Diego Garcia to The Donald for £70bn!
That is quite a shopping list. Though I’d like to see an Army strength closer to 90-95k, which brings back all the enablers. I would prefer the Army fill the manpower requirements for its two Divisions to make them proper rather than paper divisions as a minimum. Then hopefully expand to a third division, allowing a decent 6 month roulemont, of operations, stand-down, training. One area you have not addressed is the reserves. I’m very much in favour of the Swedish or Finish reserve model. Which I think is fine for less technical roles. How this works for technical jobs… Read more »
Navy is currently in a state but at least there is a programme of new ships coming. It might be a good idea to ensure those vessels were fitted for and also with weapons for a change. Navy also needs supply ships urgently. Shall we just bloody order them yeah? AUKUS is still a priority and we need to look into ways of building up our nuclear boat fleet. The SSN capability is something very few countries can offer. It’s a valuable USP when dealing with the Americans and frightening for adversaries. Army is in a pretty terrible state. Numbers,… Read more »