Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer met with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at Downing Street on 24 April for what the Prime Minister’s Office described as a “long and productive discussion” covering a range of pressing international issues.
According to officials, topics included Ukraine, energy security, the global economy, and defence cooperation.
The two leaders “condemned the deadly Russian strike on Kyiv overnight” and reaffirmed their shared commitment to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” Both Starmer and von der Leyen agreed that standing firmly with Ukraine remains a fundamental priority amid ongoing instability in Europe, according to the official readout.
Discussions also centred on the ongoing negotiations to deepen the UK-EU relationship. The Prime Minister’s Office said both leaders “agreed that good progress had been made” and instructed their respective teams to continue working intensively in the coming weeks. The goal, they stated, is to deliver “as ambitious a package as possible” ahead of the first UK-EU summit next month.
Starmer emphasised during the meeting that he would “seize any opportunity to improve the lives of working people in the United Kingdom, drive growth and keep people safe” and that he believes “a strengthened partnership between the UK and the EU will achieve this.”
The two sides agreed to stay in close contact over the coming period as discussions move forward, with both leaders signalling a shared ambition for closer cooperation on areas of mutual concern.
Not a European army please.
Why not? Threats to the UK are the same ones other nations face?
Would it not make sense to create a common defence force to face some in threats?
Emmm….. not really….. would a European Army defend Australia/New Zealand/Singapore/Malaysia/Brunei/Gibraltar/the Falklands and everywhere else the UK has defence treaties/obligations?
I would love the UK could still project power to protect Commonwealth countries- but I feel the threat is much more immediate.
Perhaps the idea of a European Army needs to to widened to include surface and sub-surface cooperation, airlift and air defence.
The UK has always had a relatively small army, but we have the technological know-how to cover other areas in a Pan-European defence policy.
“Australia/New Zealand/Singapore/Malaysia/Brunei/Gibraltar/the Falklands”
Let’s be honest. The UK realistically could only defend one of those places if anything came to it.
No … the French will want to control.
We need a European Army.
Hi Geoffrey.
Once I would have been firmly against, believing in the primacy of NATO.
Now, with Trumps unpredictability, and an seeming attitude of Ameruca only, and with long standing western allies, I’m not so sure.
I am certain Danielle. However, there is huge problem. America exercised total control over N.A.T.O. since it began. Everyone in the organisation including Great Britain toed the line. This control was essential to a coherent strategy. Now that control has gone, who is going to take over? None. Happily, our crazed opponent has demonstrated his own total incompetence and that might rescue the situation before the realisation hits home that a European Army doesn’t appeal to many Europeans unless their country controls it.
Agree, things have changed much.
I do not think it is practical yet. The EU at the moment is a very loose confederation with aspirations to unite further. No more than that.
For the type of time critical decisions defense requires it is not yet ready. A European Defense Grouping with a command structure is a better idea. Perhaps within NATO but more likely alongside it for situations that the US decides to sit out.
Europe needs an Army, it’s Land power with an aggressive neighbour that has a massive border with it.
That doesn’t mean we have to be in a European Army.
If Europe can look after itself on land we can focus on air, space and maritime as well projection of land forces to threaten Russia’s flanks.
there is no european army, since Europe is not a nation and there are no european citizens of said nation.
this does not preclude a european coalition, just like when many countries in Europe fought together to defeat Napoleon.
since US commitment to Article 5 seems questionable, just replace NATO with a pan-european version
That is the most realistic option. Any EU controlled force would be hamstrung by the usual squabbles amongst the nation states and without a directly controlled nuclear deterrent it would be missing the vital ultimate weapon.
A purely defensive European eNATO with the prerequisite Article 5 clause would be good enough to deter an aggressor backed up by the U.K. and French nuclear weapons. On the latter some funds from other European nations would be useful to increase the size of the SSBN force but how that would work in practice is open to question.
I think in the medium term an EU command structure that provides high level formations that individual nations don’t require should be a minimum.
That means 3+ star HQs, corps and army level enablers, artillery brigades, etc that EU member states will provide divisions and brigades too. Ideally also EU procurement and joint training networks that smaller nations, eg Estonia, Denmark, Belgium etc could use to pool resources and minimise duplication should also exist.
Nobody in Europe or within eu ever mentionned the idea of an european army.
Two points.
Which European countries share Frau von der Leyen’s enthusiasm for a potential confrontation with Putin? I suggest very few. Second, when is the E.U. going to sweep away the series of petty and spiteful legislative measures aimed at harming Great Britain since Brexit?
which “petty and spiteful legislation” are you referring to? can you please be specific.
I think the time has come for a European Military force, especially since the US seems to want to take a step back from Europe. A European Military could then allow each country to ‘contribute’, according to its own financial abilities, as well as their particular ‘skill set’. For example… the UK (and others) could lead the way with it’s maritime capabilities, while Poland for example, could focus on land forces.
Agree, The EU could actually build its own Army independent of member states as a US replacement (300,000 strong) while nation states continue to have their own domestic army’s fully under national control.
Such an EU force could be deployed on the same super majority basis used for budget voting in the EU instead of a unanimous basis like NATO.
The US army worked exactly like this until 1918 which is why Pershing had to be the only 6 star general in history.
More ignorance from the crazed one. Pershing was never a six star general and there never has been any six star generals in the US Army. Pershing was promoted to General of the Armies and wore four stars. By law, the highest ranking General in US history is George Washington.
Also the US Army *never* worked like that. You had regiments that bore the name of the state they where raised in and the personnel came from. But the 20th Maine was not part of a “Maine Army” that was then handed over to US Army Command, any more than the Ox and Bucks light infantry where part of the Oxfordshire Army.
I think the time has come for a European Military force, especially since the US seems to want to take a step back from Europe. A European Military could then allow each country to ‘contribute’, according to its own financial abilities, as well as their particular ‘skill set’. For example… the UK (and others) could lead the way with it’s maritime capabilities, while Poland for example, could focus on land forces.
However, human ‘frailties’ being what they are, currently, I doubt that so many countries could sit around a table to explore the possibilities, without infighting, etc etc.
The reality is that Britain is a rather small power now, with limited financial and military resources. We can still do limited out-of-area engagements, but not with any great numbers. The idea that we could place a significant force in SE Asia to support our FPDA commitment, or similar commitments elsewhere, is long gone,.
We need to.form a European defence pillar, because the main military/grey zone threat we face is from Russia. It would be militarily prudent to assume that, in any conventional land grab or theatre war, we and Europe would not be facing Russia alone, but Russia with the active backing of China and other autocratic powers. It seems clear that, for now at least, we can no.longer count on US involvement and probably even assistance.
At the moment, three large nations are throwing their weight about, while we in the UK and Europe can do little to prevent or affect the course of events. However Europe, if we include the EU and non-EU NATO nations, is the world’s second larget economy, with the second largest GDP, if fact, a go9d bit bigger than China. The population, of close on 600 million, is nearly double that of the USA and four times that of Russia. What prevents Europe punching its diplomatic and military weight are little national niggles about command positions, fishing rights,, ancient rivalries and so on.
The answer is that we need a European Security Organisation that is either the European pillar of NATO or the eventual replacement for NATO. It would need stricter rules than NATO has, regarding Clause 5 being obligatory, following any 2/3rds vote of the Council, 3% minimum of GDP defence expenditure as a term of membership and a fully-fledged military structure, either the NATO structure in Brussels or a new Euro outfit.
Lots more could be added, but the general leitmotif would be, united we stand, divided we fall.
The fear that someone else, a Frenchman or a German perhaps, would be controlling our forces is not a real issue. Officers from many countries command NATO forces at various levels and that command is rotated between different nations. That has been the case for decades and we haven’t suffered from that.
For instance, the Chiefs of Staff Committee of a European defence organisation would number 6, and there are 6 large nations in Europe, so it would normally have one senior officer from each of Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain and Turkey, with their departmental staffs consisting of officers from these and other countries, broadly how NATO works at the moment.