Chancellor Rachel Reeves has called for closer defence and industrial cooperation with Europe, urging allies to pursue joint procurement and deeper interoperability as a way to deliver better value for money and accelerate capability delivery.
Speaking at an event on European security at the London School of Economics, hosted by Brussels-based think tank Bruegel, Reeves argued that Britain’s future was closely tied to that of Europe, both economically and strategically, and warned against creating new barriers in defence supply chains. Her remarks also appeared to push back against emerging European proposals that prioritise “made in Europe” defence rules, with Reeves suggesting that procurement efforts should be broadened to include other trusted, like-minded partners rather than becoming inward-looking.
“On defence, we don’t want to create more barriers. We want to be bringing those barriers down. We want to greater integrate supply chains, not damage them by taking a sort of inward-looking approach,” she said.
Reeves said the potential benefits of joint procurement and standardisation across European nations were significant, highlighting the inefficiencies created when countries buy similar equipment to different specifications. “I don’t think any Chancellor actually believes we are getting the value for money that we should. Things like interoperability, joint procurement, not every country in Europe having different specifications when they’re buying equipment, the potential there is huge,” she added.
The Chancellor’s comments come amid growing debate over Europe’s ability to rapidly rearm, increase production capacity and reduce duplication across national programmes. Reeves has positioned her approach as part of the government’s wider push to reset relations with the EU, including aligning with EU regulatory standards where it is in the UK’s national interest.
Her intervention also follows a similar message heard repeatedly at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. UK Defence Journal has spent much of the day on the ground at NATO HQ today, where allied officials have consistently stressed that joint procurement can deliver more “bang for buck”, unlock efficiency savings, and in many cases allow faster deployment of urgently required capabilities.
It would sound like a fair point, and is really. The trouble is Reeves is refusing to fund what we need. I imagine our European allies, particularly Poland and the Baltic states, scratch their head when we start lecturing others about defence procurement!
I will say it again from 3rd highest NATO spenders to 12th since the Ukraine war begun by some measures at least. Under those circumstances her hectoring rings relatively hollow despite the actual sense inherent in the implications. We sound like a paper tiger.
Fabulous, I expect to hear that France is adopting Eurofighter and CAMM any day now.
Lol..and the UK will buy the CV90 or Lynx and some SAMP/T.
Obviously she is:
1. Right. We do need to restructure the European defence sector to provide better value for money, remove duplication and foster areas of excellence.
2. Not going to fund the Defence Investment Plan adequately and so is getting her retaliation in first with the need to make to whole of European defence spending go further.
“Reeves suggesting that procurement efforts should be broadened to include other trusted, like-minded partners rather than becoming inward-looking”
That is surely a joke….the whole point of the EU is that it is an inwards looking protectionist organisation!
In the French view EU collaboration on defence means buying French technology or subsidising its creation.
What Reeves is really repeating is the previous team that Eurofudge projects are cheaper with more partners and as they have more cash move faster. That has never been the case. They always more far slower because of the arguments over technologique and workshare. Because they are far slower they actually more expensive.
Multiparty Good Ideas Club perfectionism gets very slow and very, very expensive.
No. The French view on eu collaboration is about having eu funds funding eu projects ; ie projects designed, produced in eu and which can ensure an autonomous Europe capable to defend itself. Samba or camo are pretty good examples.
I think we will agree to disagree then!
😂😂😂 – Thanks for the laugh.
Quick question – Are you delusional full time or part time?
Supportive Bloke Quote: “ In the French view EU collaboration on defence means buying French technology or subsidising its creation”
100% agree SB 👏
Can you try bringing facts instead of emoticons? If not, you better stay at the kids’ table.
Jools …. I think the French demand of 80% work share in FCAS tells a story of it’s own. It’s going to sink FCAS altogether.
The 46% workshare demand during their brief membership of the Typhoon consortium, along with protection of it’s technology from being shared is also further proof they have no interest in defence or industrial co-operation.
If you go back to the Panavia Tornado development, they also withdrew to develop their own product.
One point that France does have is that Germany’s arms export controls make any product difficult to export, which the French have successfully done with the Rafale. This has been a problem with Typhoon exports with Germany vetoing many possible sales.
Trouble with that is
1 Europe needs Britain and indeed other non EU Countries like Turkey to be sure of defending itself.
2 I don’t think Canada is in the EU despite them being included in the Club far, far cheaper than the terms offered to Britain.
Fact is it’s petty politics at work here that undermines European strength and unity ever being a true expectation. Canada is seen as a potential market whereas Britain is seen as a competitor to France in particular selling its weapons more widely. Very short sighted in my view and no doubt in the ignored view of many other Countries in the EU like Poland, the Baltics and the Scandinavians.
Why on earth EU funds should finance british industry? Of course this is political but it’s also economical and industrial. UK can very Well take part in europe’s procurement plans or funding and it does: just out of national budgets and not eu’s.
I sometimes wonder who the prime minister is. It is common knowledge that Reeves is behind the glacial pace of defence funding increase . Why the hell doesn’t Starmer simply tell her. This needs to be done, I want options on my desk by next week.
Instead she blocks MoD funding increase .
Dear Vlad, love to go to war with you but funds a bit tight . Maybe next year.
He would need to ask his advisors first… oh damn. Downing Street we have a problem, let’s admit it Larry would be a better decision maker in this giant dirt box.
Well, defence spending is scheduled to rise by 22% over the four years from 2024/5 to 2027/8, the largest rise of any department. The last time defence got a substantial rise like this was back in the Cold War, since then we’ve endured more than 30 years of ruinous cuts to the defence budget. So government/treasury are at least moving in the right direction.
Of course a lot more money is needed for defence, no question. Equally, a lot more is also needed for NHS and othet welfare services, infrastucture, police, etc. The government has to do a fine balancing act, because the general public is not prepared to pay more tax or accept cuts in welfare to pay for all these wants.
All these big equipment orders that our ENATO allies are making are not coming solely from government income, almost none of them have the money to fund the increase to 3.5% of GDP, just the same as the UK. They are largely borrowing the money, either by issuing gilts or from the EU’s SAFE fund. To do so, most are raising their fiscal ceiling to permit more borrowing, or permitting defence increases to exceed the ceiling.
I think that is the route we will need to go down to reach 3.5% on defence. Either that or put 1p on the pound in tax specifically for defence, or launch defence bonds, or form a government-backed defence and security bank to give low-cost loans to industry and defence manufacturers etc.
Hoping that there is a magic money tree that will swell the treasury’s coffers is fanciful.
“I don’t think any Chancellor actually believes we are getting the value for money that we should.”
I don’t think any Def Sec actually believes we are spending the money that we should in the first place. That lack causes failure far more often than the infamous MOD screw ups like Ajax.
Given her and Labour’s track record, I treat this with the contempt it deserves.
HMT is one of the greatest enemies the forces face.
People in grey suits from accounts don’t give a fig about emotion, particularly those from the UK Treasury. As far as they are concerned, welfare comes way before money for grown men driving around in tanks. For years, defence has been relegated as a priority, and even when World tensions require the Cabinet’s attention to turn to the armed forces, it invariably is a short-term spasm.
Where is the DIP Rachel? It is getting silly now.
The only dip she knows about John is into everybodys pocket.
Reeves is a disasternnot waiting to happen. She has already caused it. The chances of getting any real extra money for defence is nil.
Just empty soundbites while the forces get no new money. No more tanks or aircraft & warship regeneration actually slowing despite old T23s falling apart from old age.
She found £3.5b a year to remove the child benefit cap.
£4m a day is found to house migrants rather than deport or detain in tents behind barbed wire.
Starmer survived by agreeing to demands to shift to the left, so expect higher state spending on benefits, public sector ( though not the armed forces).
Defence increases won’t happen anytime soon.
She wants to rejoin, the labour front bench do. They will pledge that at the next GE then all problems solved in their view, access to defence funding, a Ukraine army of 500k within the EU and all claims of increases cancelled.
Business as usual.
Labour.
” Politics can be a force for good, we will show that”.
“You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy”.
“It’s like putting Lipstick on a Pig”.
That from a government thats has bought almost nothing since coming to power,cheeky lady. Warm words while out of touch with any reality,