In a recent House of Lords debate, members discussed amendments to the UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) and advocated for expanding the AUKUS alliance—a trilateral security partnership with Australia and the US—to include Canada, Japan, and South Korea.
Led by Lord Goldsmith, the debate focused on the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and enhancing cooperation in nuclear defence.
Established in 1958, the MDA is a key agreement underpinning nuclear cooperation between the UK and the US, allowing for the exchange of nuclear materials and technology essential to the UK’s independent deterrent. The latest amendment removes the need for a 10-year renewal, creating an “evergreen” agreement. While many viewed this continuity as strengthening the UK’s deterrent, some raised concerns over reduced parliamentary oversight.
Lord Goldsmith highlighted the International Agreements Committee’s recommendation that, in place of regular renewals, the government should commit to providing a report to Parliament on the MDA every decade. He remarked that while the change provides valuable continuity, it reduces Parliament’s role in monitoring developments in nuclear defence. “This is yet another example of the shortcomings of the CRaG regime,” he noted, referring to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act’s (CRaG) limited 21-day scrutiny period.
In contrast, Lord Verdirame supported the amendment, arguing that “an indefinite agreement is appropriate…given the strategic importance of our alliance with the United States.” He added that the amended terms align well with the MDA’s legal framework, which already requires mutual consent for termination.
Lord Hannay described the CRaG process as “absurdly short,” especially when compared to the extended review period in the US Congress. Many members called for a more comprehensive scrutiny process for treaties like the MDA.
The debate also covered AUKUS, with Lord Udny-Lister describing it as a “key pillar” of the UK’s Indo-Pacific defence strategy. The agreement, which provides Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, also facilitates cooperation on advanced military technologies such as AI, quantum computing, and hypersonics. Lord Udny-Lister noted that AUKUS not only bolsters UK security but also strengthens “opportunities for technological advancement and military exports, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.”
Several members called for an expansion of AUKUS to include Canada, Japan, and South Korea. Lord Hannan argued that this could create a broader, democratic alliance to counterbalance “rival models” from authoritarian states. Echoing this, Lord Bilimoria noted that “expanding AUKUS would help reinforce international security and provide deeper technological and economic ties among allies.”
Economic opportunities were also highlighted, with many members noting AUKUS’s potential to benefit the UK’s defence industries. Lord Bilimoria stated that “the UK’s defence industries…stand to benefit significantly,” adding that AUKUS would create demand for “highly skilled jobs and manufacturing.” However, Baroness Bennett raised environmental and fiscal concerns, questioning whether this nuclear-based strategy aligns with modern defence requirements.
I feel like the last thing AUKUS needs is an even longer time frame caused by dragging the Royal Canadian Navy and its procurement along with it
If anything we’ll probably have the type 83s in first cut while the River class aren’t fully delivered the pace they’re going.
A ridiculous name, for a major ocean going cambaten? Our Rivers are just OPV’s!
References to Canada, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea were in reference to AUKUS pillar 2 and had nothing to do with the submarines. They are therefore matters for the militaries and governments of these countries rather than naval matters in particular. Also it was brought up in the debate, by Lord Bilimoria, that while discussions with these countries are ongoing, none are currently ready to join pillar 2.
The only issue with letting them all in on pillar two is that pillar two is the make believe photon torpedo section of the agreement including Hypersonic’s and the Easter bunny. NZ and Canada are very weak on confronting China, they add no value, neither has any money or tech much worth having. South Korea also very weak on confronting China and Russia. I see nothing they add to the party. AUKUS should be about supporting Australia, I have no desire to get dragged into a pacific NATO with a bunch of countries who care little for other peoples collective… Read more »
The deployment of North Korean troops to Ukraine has potential for improved South Korea confronting China and Russia. We shall see..
Exactly we should honestly leave AUKUS as the septic tanks are probably going to re-elect that moron again and leave nato so why should we care about a part of the world that has little relevance or importance to the UK/europe? What do we get out of this? 🤔
Yeah we wouldn’t want them to have nothing stopping them concentrating everything on a single western/Artic front in Europe would we. Or giving them total control of the silicon chip industry we all rely on for even a sniff of economic independence. Forcing countries to split their forces on two fronts is a completely overrated strategy clearly, as history has shown us, or were you being sarcastic too?
Yes, Canada under Trudeau will not meet the NATO target of 2% defense spending, how can Canada be allowed to join AUKUS?
The thing is, why does Canada need to?
As others say, it offers nothing.
Although not part of NATO, Japans defence spending is only 1.6% of GDP.
Isn’t Japan in progress of changing from an island defence posture to one able to confront CCP aggression because global trade and international rule of law is in their national interest…
Signing Japan/UK defence agreement and Tempest programme involvement being concrete examples of a new approach.
They are, I was just point out that waving the 2% GDP finger doesn’t mean a county isn’t spending money on defence
Good point, I suspect they will be gradually increasing that % too though sensibilities dictate a somewhat gradual and disguised process.
It wouldn’t get in unless it quite rightly did tbh. As to what it has to offer, while that’s a very good question we shouldn’t out of hand ignore that it does have a pretty strong hi tech sector in ai, robotics and even a hypersonic aircraft programme that’s not YET gone into liquidation.
Nobody in the US could give a tinker’s dam about what some members of an irrelevant and anachronistic body think about an area where the UK has no Armed Forces of any significance stationed and where the US has for over 80 years carried the burden of Defense. And, need we mention, where the US has a decades long established security framework of defense treaties.
No one cares what you think.
Yawn
The way the US is going they will be fighting among themselves shortly anyway.
Another #45 term means that the CCP can do whatever they want as NATO will be busy Supporting Ukraine without the former USA. . The only NATO member to invoke Article 5 was the USA (9/11) when everyone responded. So clearly NATO membership is the USA national interest. Congress passed a law to prevent an Executive Order to exit NATO. . NATO says the 2014 spending agreement is on track, so his alleged delinquency by Europe is just to trigger his supporters. Lies. . So it’s in the national interest of the free world and Ukraine that convicted fraudster and… Read more »
Enjoy your war with china with your poodle vassal states of australia Korea and Japan moron
It’s almost like you parasites set out to destroy the British empire and bankrupt GB during and after WWII.The sooner your country collapses the better.
Yes it’s true so as to become the only World power military and economic they pursued the plan of emasculating the UK who if we had retained our pre war investments alone, would have benefitted greatly from their economic ‘greatness’ instead of being reduced to a basket case. Probably turning out to have been a little short sighted now and a little ironic when they mine about others lack of military investment, but self interest does govern most national motivations around the World. Empowering China I fear will be their and our worst one of all in that regard that… Read more »
Why you commenting on here then, If you don’t care a tinker’s dam of Europe?
Go back to your septic tank!
Well by that weird logic we might as well pack up close down the UK and turn off the lights, not sure that’s the best decision for the 70m who live here and can’t relocate. Tbh though the same logic presently might claim the laughably anarchic and anachronistic disguised monarchic system of the United States dictate it might as well throw in the tail and accept the Chinese Communist Party perfecting an economic system that the Nazis would frankly have recognised, are going to be effectively running the World in 50 years or so while they flail around finding scapegoats… Read more »
If Canada gets involved they’ll end up with a sub that somehow costs 3 times as much as it should but is only armed with a deck gun and strong language.
Maybes could construct a modern recreation of a WW2 U Boat, like the car manufacturers do with classic cars. Could easily cost $10 billion using the correct modern day materials.
As the Artic continues to melt and bad actors try to start commercial exploration the Canadian coastline becomes more important for security and environmental control. Presumably submarines should be part of that, maybe SSN being over specified when SSK would be sufficient?
Britain gets nothing out AUKUS so why are we even a part of it?
We still got a lot of relatives there! We don’t want No harm to come to them!
…and your evidence for this is?
How many russian and chinese trolls on here spreading hatred? loads im guessing