Defence Secretary John Healey has defended the UK’s close military cooperation with France over Ukraine, despite concerns raised over France’s role in excluding the UK from a £150 billion European defence fund.
Speaking in the House of Commons, James Cartlidge MP (Con, South Suffolk) questioned whether the UK should continue working so closely with France on military efforts in Ukraine while French policymakers were working to block UK access to European defence programmes.
“On the potential peacekeeping force for Ukraine, we have heard from the Secretary of State that it is jointly British and French. In fact, in every one of his answers he stressed the amount of work we are doing with France,” he said.
“Is it therefore not extraordinary that, at the very same time, France should be working to undermine our defence industry by having us excluded from a £150 billion European defence fund, which will include other non-EU states?”
Healey dismissed the concerns, arguing that the UK is working to negotiate access to European defence projects through a formal UK-EU defence and security partnership.
“The hon. Gentleman is clearly a glass-half-empty type of guy,” Healey responded.
“The European Union, when it produced its defence and security white paper last week, set in place specific arrangements for any third nation, such as the UK, that strikes a defence and security partnership with the European Union.”
“That is exactly what we went to the country with, promising to undertake that as a UK Government. Any country with a partnership in place then potentially has access to those sorts of programmes and that sort of funding, and that is what we will try to negotiate for this country and our industry.”
UK’s Role in European Security
Cartlidge insisted that the UK’s military contributions to European security justify its inclusion in the European defence programme.
“We provide our nuclear deterrent unconditionally to European NATO countries 24/7, our Army is in Estonia defending Europe’s eastern flank, and we have done more than any other European nation to support Ukraine,” he said.
He called on the Prime Minister and Defence Secretary to challenge French President Emmanuel Macron, arguing that now was not the time for political disputes over defence cooperation.
“Will the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister stand up to President Macron and stress to him that this is the worst possible time to prioritise fishing rights over Europe’s collective security?”
Healey dismissed what he called “Brexit rhetoric”, reaffirming the UK’s commitment to leading efforts with France to build a multinational coalition to secure a lasting peace in Ukraine.
“We are leading efforts with the French Government and the French military to meet the challenge of the US and the requirements of Ukraine to have a coalition of countries willing to stand with Ukraine in the context of a negotiated peace,” he said.
“To help them secure enduring stability and deterrence, to prevent Russia re-invading that sovereign country.”
Speaking as a Brexiteer, it seems only natural that the EU is only including in this programme those nations with which it has a defence and security pact – especially given the new unreliability of the USA. Makes sense for the U.K. to sign such a pact with the EU, Healey needs to pull his finger out.
I agree, why would we expect to gain access to a European defence fund unless we were paying into it. The UK has plenty ability to borrow and should focus on its own industry.
I am making a good salary from home $4580-$5240/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now its my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
Here is I started_______ 𝐖𝐖𝐖.𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐑𝟏.𝐂𝐎𝐌
The UK has been trying to sign a defence pact for quite some time, but it keeps getting held up by EU demands on irrelevant crap like Fishing rights and youth mobility schemes.
This seems most likely to be a French plan to remove one competitor in the defence sector and screw over any others inside the EU that may be partnering with Britain, Eurofighter for example, MBDA might have considerable problems also, perhaps France are hoping to force them to move production to France.
Fishing rights was a big arguement for Brexit. The UK fishing industry nearly collapsed after we left the EU and got bailed out by the Boris administration.
Well, maybe backstabbing the French with aukus was not such a brillant idea after all.
Reuters wrote an article titled ‘Can non-EU companies be part of EU’s big defence fund?’ According to Reuters, To be eligible to provide at least 65% of the cost of a product, companies should be established in the EU, an EEA EFTA country or Ukraine – and not be controlled by another country.’
According to Reuters, To be eligible to provide at least 65% of the cost of a product, companies should be established in the EU, an EEA EFTA country or Ukraine – and not be controlled by another country. The article is called ‘Explainer: Can non-EU companies be part of EU’s big defence fund?’
I agree, why would we expect to gain access to a European defence fund unless we were paying into it. The UK has plenty ability to borrow and should focus on its own industry.
I have long thought that we should make clear to the EU members of NATO that the extent to which we provide help under article 5 ( a matter that the treaty leaves to individual nations) will be influenced by their actions towards Britain in other areas.
If we can get a balanced defence agreement with the EU- fine, but we need to be wary.
Other areas Like uk backstabbing France with aukus for instance?
Hardly back-stabbing – we simply offered a different solution for Australia, especially after France had been incredibly lazy.
lol, very funny. Now, when is the solution to be delivered? 🙂
Lazy? At least they don’t repair their subs with glue.
France was not lazy, especially when compared to the current solution.
If it had just been a shift in the program, it could have been done quite differently without any issues in France.
The nuclear argument is not enough since the Attack class was based on a nuclear sub.
It was a backstabbing, and it’s not without reason that the reaction was strong.
But we also know that the UK didn’t decide anything and the US was the mastermind behind this.
This 150 billion is the smaller of the two funds. The larger is a 600 billion european not EU fund. It’s being done that way to avoid Hungary vetoing everything. The latter fund will be open to the UK. The government should stay focused on getting a trade agreement with the United States. The current blip will be gone in a few years. Running round with your hair on fire is not the right move. This behaviour you see from the French is typical and it infuriates other EU states like Germany. Any agreement with the EU will therefore come with a built in price from the French. Personally I wouldn’t pay it.
This ‘blip’ would you like to elaborate upon what you are specifically referring to, and then how and why you think it will be over in a few years.
After all if it’s US relations not only are they claiming a New World Order (where have I heard that before) but the best trade agreement ever negotiated NAFTA (by Trump of course) is suddenly a few years later the worst trade agreement ever negotiated while questioning who was responsible. Doesn’t give me great confidence in anything but at best superficially beneficial to the uk in certain respects, is likely to be negotiated or long lasting while I fear underlying threats to our freedoms will be tucked deeply into the small print. After all to continue the one with Canada he is insisting the transfer of land and river navigation rights and those are just the ones we know about. I’m sure there are exclusive and beneficial rights over Canadian goods like tungsten, uranium, oil etc al it requires for its military and economic advantages over competitors. Selling one’s soul is what I thought we were trying to avoid with Brexit so if we think France was/is bad….
Trump is trying to create a more overt version of the economy based US Empire. This extension is one in which nations are now required to pay twice, economically and in loss of freedoms and/or control over their resources. The US has enjoyed huge benefits in having the world’s main reserve currency enabling it to effectively run huge deficits at home in exchange for other countries and businesses using the Dollar to trade on the international markets. It is the receipts from those international trades that allow the US deficit. That position gives the US huge influence and supports the US economic hedgemony / empire and the powerful political position the US enjoys.
Trump is now trying to monetise US international relationships. The new administration is in effect running the country as a business, but countries are not corporations and international relations are definitely not business contracts. Politics is messy, even more so than business which has but one overriding objective – profit. Nation states have many conflicting objectives within their boarders, just look at the partisan behaviours in US politics at the moment.
If nations feel they have control over their own resources and have the wherewithal to make free choices about how they run their own countries and lives then they are going to be comfortable playing second fiddle to the US on the international stage, bending their own national interests in line with US interests. If they lose those freedoms at home or feel those freedoms are threatened then there is a much great chance that those countries will pull away from the US and the US Empire risk decline and ultimately collapse.
The striking thing is that the US doesn’t seem to understand the ‘contract’ that holds the US Empire together. It is a unique form of Empire, an Empire of the willing. Kill the willingness to be part of something and things can quickly go wrong…
There was a post on Facebook that Mrs CR spotted about Trump’s demand for payment for aid given to Ukraine, and I paraphrase, “70 countries responded to the US call for assistance after 9/11 and not one of them has asked for payment.”
The US Dollar represent 60% of all reserves held by global central banks – wouldn’t take much to push it below 50% which would significantly weaken it’s position and the Euro and Yuan could vie to replace it.
I focus on the economic because Trump has made that the new battleground, with his allies, and strong economies can support strong militaries.
If Trump and his administration think they running a risk free strategy, they ain’t, they are playing with a kind of economic MAD brinkmanship, one that could easily lead to another kind of MAD.
Cheers CR
I wouldn’t pay too much attention to the fluff about invading other countries. Bolton is spot on when he describes Trump’s polices as all about me. It’s the culture of me. The American people will tire of him and his stooges. Tariffs are a great way to shoot yourself in the foot economically and its already showing. Reduced growth, increasing inflation. Throw in a dollop of complete incompetence like we saw recently and what you get is alot of buyers regret on the part of American voters. Mid-terms are next year and they will lose control of one or both houses. What we don’t want to do is swap American nationalism for European nationalism. Spot the opportunities and make the most of them. NAFTA was actually an ok deal, ironically. Just because Trump has reneged on it, doesn’t make it otherwise. The Democrats stuck by the deal and he won’t be in office forever. I think it’s safe to say that Trump is a departure from normal American policy and the current policies are not sustainable in the longer term.
No sorry that is completely miss understanding what is happening in the US, this is not a blip this a generational strategic reset, the sooner people in the UK and Europe get their heads around this the quicker we can ensure the European nations are in a place to defend their global interests and don’t become a wealthier nicer 21c version of Africa.
This was from the RUSI institute..not an organisation known for getting over excited
The US is becoming divorced from European values,That’s difficult [for Europeans] to swallow because it means that it’s structural, cultural and potentially long-term, I think the current trajectory of the US will outlast Trump, as a person. I think Trumpism will outlast his presidency.”
Ben Wallace who is a politician I respect, says
“I think Article 5 is on life support. If Europe, including the United Kingdom, doesn’t step up to the plate, invest a lot on defence and take it seriously, it’s potentially the end of the Nato that we know and it’ll be the end of Article 5. Right now, I wouldn’t bet my house that Article 5 would be able to be triggered in the event of a Russian attack… I certainly wouldn’t take for granted that the United States would ride to the rescue.”
Even a lot of America commentators are essentially saying that NATO is now finished.
Most importantly and what we should really be concerned about is what was the purpose of NATO..fundamentally it was a DETERRENT, that deterrent especially after the personal texts leaks is now essentially dead..Putin no longer believes for a second that the U.S. will meaningfully react to an article five, he looks at Europe and sees a load of nations now running around like headless chickens.. he even has actually allies in NATO and the EU with veto powers. What does Xi see..he sees 23% of the worlds wealth and power now split away from the enemy he wishes with all his heart to remove from the western pacific, the US… all he has to do now is be able to beat a few small powers and whatever the US can project 10,000 Kms…he will now think he can win and he will now launch that sino US when he is ready.
This is not a Blip this a one of the most fundamental shifts in world wide geostrategic balance seen in 100 years.. it is a match for the rise of the fascist powers in the 1930s, the fall of the communism in 1990…not a BLIP… as soon as people really get that we can start doing something about it.
Hi Jonathan,
You have put into words what I have felt but hoped was not true. It is, sadly, very true.
The EU is NOT a military alliance and while I support it’s efforts in the short term it needs to understand that it cannot be an economic block and a military alliance, there are too many contradictions – just look at the attitude of our own Treasury towards Defence (although MOD senior service chiefs have done much to justify that Treasury attitude over the last 20 or so years!). In short a new defensive alliance with the same kind of terms and assurances provided by NATO needs to be put in place and when the time comes the process will need to be lightning quick. As such, I hope someone somewhere in Europe is whispering about the such a new alliance.
If Europe can pull off that trick and has the sense to hold out the hand of friendship to other like minded nations around the globe it might just be able to hold the line – but deterrence is badly weakened right now and Europe while far from helpless is in a much weaker position than it was just 3 short months ago.
Things are changing fast and at the moment, and I do not think Europe is keeping up with events. Someone needs to get a grip and in Europe that is always a challenge given the number of countries crammed into a relatively small area with 1000’s of years history of not getting on with each other.
Also while I do not think that the EU is the best vehicle to create a new defence alliance I do believe that the two bodies would need to work together, as we have seen with NATO. I also believe that the new alliance would need to be open to expansion outside of the traditional NATO area as that limitation is no entirely obsolete, if only because of Europe’s high population density… Parts of the French Republic exist in the Pacific Region, the UK has friends and allies beyond Suez and European countries trade globally as well. A new block of the willing will need to emerge if Europe is to retain its freedom and way of life and that will mean we will need to, support and be supported by, others to ensure a viable and meaning block of nations with the resources to stand as collective equals to what is increasingly looking like a three block global system – Europe+, CRINK (China, Russia, Iran and North Korea) and US alignments…
In the short term it is going to be messy and uncertain. Hopefully there will be enough time for Europe to sort itself out, but things could change in seconds – literally seconds if the wrong person feels put out – so the scramble in Europe is justified but I do not think they are taking a sufficiently long term view – they need a goal to pursue collectively and they need it quickly.
Messy, interesting (or do I mean frightening) and dangerous times.
Cheers CR
It seems the French are making uk pay for aukus, isn’t?
Damn, you’re obsessed. Explain to me why you think the UK somehow betrayed France with AUKUS.
Obsessed, no but reading a conservative whining about French undermining uk defense industry is un plaisir de fin gourmet…
The truth is we are at a crossroad.. this really is probably the single most dangerous and momentous geostrategic shift anyone of us has ever lived through..unless your in your 90s and saw the rise of fascism. Forget the fall of communism as that was essentially a net gain and positive even..what we are seeing is the fragmentation of the west and that is not in anyway a net gain, it’s going to throw the world into utter chaos for possibly a generation.
The U.S. has changed there is no going back, it is no longer socially or politically aligned with Europe..we need to accept that and build a new relationship understanding that that relationship is not going to be based on mutual benefit and understanding, but will be a competitive neutral relationship..it needs to be friendly.but in the same way as we are friendly with India…as in we get on but would not hand them the crown Jews to look after.
We need to understand what NATO was, it was a profoundly effective DETERRENCE .. but that deterrent was dependent on the U.S. with 30% of the worlds wealth and power being in lockstep with all the European democracies who hold 23% of the worlds wealth and power… that’s why NATO was such a deterrent it held over 50% of the wealth and power in the world and world work as one to defend itself.. now deterrents only work if you have the 3 Cs…
Capable..for NATO a function of capacity has always been cohesion..so if NATO is not cohesive it is not capable
Credible that NATO has forces based and able to deploy to where needed.
Communicated that the capability and credibility is communicated to the enemy in a way the believe the deterrent.
Essentially everything that has been happening has been undermining all three of the Cs that are the point of NATO existing..the last set of leaked messages are probably the most destructive of all because they show the US decision makers true thoughts on supporting ( or not ) their European allies..I don’t think people truly understand that although the structures of NATO still exist they are essentially now no longer fulfilling their purpose and it’s essentially a walking corpse of a treaty… because although the power is still in place the 3 Cs that drive the deterrent no longer exists..Putin will now believe he probably can attack a European NATO state in some way and get away without of full NATO response or US involvement and china will now essentially be moving Europe ( with 23% of the worlds wealth and power ) from a belligerent in any pacific war with the U.S. to a potential hostile neutral.
So what will the world look like..there are likely to be three core super power groups or potential super power groups ( each will control 20-30% of the worlds wealth and power) the US, china and EU.
The EU will need to now decide what it is faced with this new world..it’s going to change, very likely it will become more cohesive militarily and a new defence alliance will form around the EU..it will need to be not only defensive in nature but it will also need to be offensive/expeditionary and kinetically impact on geostrategic balance especially in the western and eastern Indian Ocean, artic, Africa, Middle East and north and south Atlantic. It will need a cohesive full spectrum military. It will rub up against other powers in the Europe Asian boarder, artic, western Indian Ocean and Africa, it may possibly rub up against the U.S. in Atlantic region especially where its interests cross into the eastern Atlantic..friendship with Canada, Greenland etc.
The U.S. is now very much a U.S. first and only nation, clearly expansionist with a plan to dominate the American continent and for the rest of the Americas to act as a near abroad..it sees its area of interest beyond the Americas as the artic, Antarctic and pacific. It sees Europe as not really a world player..but the EU as a potential impediment to US dominance. It’s likely to rub with other American powers and nations, anyone going into the artic, and china in the pacific as its key challenger to Dominance.. this is the core change in US geostrategic views.. it’s moved from see itself as a leader of the west to a Dominant power… there is a subtle difference between leadership and domination. The interesting thing is the US sees three different core powers existing because it does not want to accept the EU as a power..it sees the world spit between US, china and Russian dominance..this will be a major challenge for the EU and US relations and will determine what sort of relationship they have. If the U.S. cannot accept the EU as a world power it’s very possible that US European relationships go down the toilet ( I could actually see a possible bizarre world in which Europe has a better relationship with china than it does with the US and the U.S. has a better relationship with Russia than with Europe)
China is now likely to become even more focused on challenging US dominance in the Western pacific and will work hard to move Europe and the EU from the potential enemy status to Neutral when it comes to kinetically challenging US domination of the western pacific..and china is going to do that. China will rub up and be in conflict with any power that challenges its western pacific dominance.
Then you have the worlds independent powers and emerging powers ( UK, Russia, India, Brazil, Japan ) in reality each of these nations will need to essentially pick a side..Russia will try to play up to being at the top table.but it would have little chance going against either china or a new cohesive EU with a coherent military.. so it will probably need to carefully plot its course..the same with the UK..how do we plot a course between a dominant and expansionist US that essentially wants to undermine the EU ( and would potentially us Russia to do so) and a newly militarised and politically coherent EU.
Another path is that or the MAGA view in which the EU is essentially nullified and Europe becomes a patchy of small independent nations sandwiched between. The U.S. and Russia…with Russia acting as a balance between china and the U.S…I’m not sure I like the MAGA world view.
In the end I would love a return to a coherent western power block with the US as a leader..but unfortunately that in reality is now gone because the US has chosen a different path..the EU now needs to chose what it will be..superpower or fragmented playground for the MAGA US and Russia and the UK needs to decide what its role will be in this new world and whose team is it going to be on.
Hi Jonathan,
You paint a grim picture, but as I say above, I think you are on the right lines. There is, of course, the US mid-terms which could put the brakes on the current administration but that is not guaranteed by any means and even if it did I suspect it would only be a pause in the shift.
On the face of it the UK is in a uniquely vulnerable position at the moment. Our nuclear deterrent is dependent on the US, our military is closely intertwined with the US military and we sit outside of the EU whilst geographical anchored off the Western Sea Board of Europe…
We face huge economic implications if we have to realign our political, military and intelligence structures away from the US. If we don’t we face being dominated by a US that is moving in a very different direction to the one we traditionally plot and Trumps suggestion that Canada become the 51st state is a chilling one given those circumstances. Europe might be messy, but we have friends there who still appreciate us, Norway being one good example. So what would we need to do to develop a degree of independence?
Assuming we chose Europe, probably the safest option given the politics and geography, then we will need to develop a truly independent nuclear deterrent which is likely to be costly as I can’t the US supporting us in that endeavour. Intelligence would be another area where we would lose out hugely, although we do have unique capabilities in that regard relative to Europe and Canada, Australia and New Zealand might come along for the ride as well…
Conventionally, our armed forces are probably better placed, but US ITAR regulations would be an issue as would closeness of operational ties. Our military can operate independently on a small scale or in a NATO context, but there would need to be a significant up lift of logistical capabilities if we were to be able to deploy even a small force globally and sustain it without US support – but that is probably where we are heading.
Then there is the politics. All of the above and much more besides will generate huge political risks and we will have to work hard to avoid any serious sudden falling out with the US. At the moment it is looking like Starmer and the King are managing to keep relations with the US cordial and steady but how long will that last?
Its a mess and there is no easy answer. The US is on a new path and where that path will eventually lead we cannot truly know until we get a lot closer to the destination In the meantime, we need to plan for the worst and make some difficult choices early and get ahead of the new game – or we will get caught in the middle.
Traditionally, the UK has played the go between between Europe and the US. I think we need to continue that role for the time being if for no other reason than we need to avoid sudden surprises if at all possible and that means talking and maintaining relationships, something we are good at thankfully. We can also build on recent developments particularly with Japan and Australia. Membership of CPTPP could be very valuable here as it creates lines of communication and areas of mutual interest – two ingredients of successful diplomacy.
As I say above I think Europe will need to look outside of its traditional area of concern, there is already a recognition of that with Italy, France and the UK sending carriers to the Far East. Such activities are overt signs of friendship and support for threatened countries around the Pacific Rim including the US and I believe we should continue such deployments, even if the rationale for them evolves over time.
In short we need to try and keep the US as a friend for as long as possible, even if they are no longer an ally, while we reconstruct a European alliance that is also open to including other democratic countries around the globe who share our values and wish to maintain national autonomy. (Japan and South Korea have some tough choices ahead which might impact the UK as well.)
I just hope that our politicians are planning for the worst and hoping for the best, as planning for the best and hoping for the best just got blown out of the water.
Cheers CR
Uk chose when backstabbing the French with aukus, isn’t?
Lots of people are dismissing current American actions by saying it’s all about Trump and that it will pass once he’s off the scene. This misses the point. It isn’t all about Trump. His actions are being actively supported by MAGA and quite a lot of other non-MAGA Americans. Those people won’t go away and could quite likely form the basis of future American governments. Vance has a good chance of becoming next Republican candidate; he’s been stated as possibly being worse than Trump in many areas. In other words, the UK needs to inoculate itself against future American governments as well as the present one…
Which means we have to build up closer links with other nations and organisations. Japan and Australia are all well and good but they are a long way away. Canada has it’s own issues and isn’t really going to make a big difference. Which leaves Europe/EU.
Militarily, we NEED each other. Simple as that. We NEED to be involved in defence initiatives. Europe plus the EU could be the strongest military alliance in the world – but it suffers from fragmentation, duplication of effort and small scale production efforts.
I appreciate I’m not giving answers to the problem, just stating the problem. But it’s a start.
Vance is deeply unpopular. He is the most unpopular VP in history. He polls lower than Harris at present. I think your missing the point, if I maybe so bold. Trump lost the 2020 election. He only won this time round because of an entirely bodged campaign by the Democrats. There is no MAGA majority in the United States. The floating voter is king. The facts always prevail. Tariffs are bad for your economy. Alienating your allies is bad news. This will and is already feeding through to the American public and economy. Thatcher was the embodiment of Thatcherism. Without her it withered the same with Trump. Its the cult of personality.
Don’t say Vance is deeply unpopular, You will have Daniel Morgen on here lecturing on how people on here how popular he is
So the conservative party which backstabbed the French with aukus and did put at risk hundreds of French jobs is now whining because the French aren’t being Nice by not provinding access to eu money conservatives would refuse to fund.
This is irony and grotesque elevated into an art.
The French design was incredibly undercosted, to the point where the final price almost doubled by the time the project was cancelled. The Australians essentially came out and said they didn’t want to deal with the French. Hardly a British betrayal.
You mean the design australian kept changing? Whatever, stop whining not getting EU funds, it’s ridicule.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you’re French?
The Australian design did change, yes, but only after the first round of delays created Naval Group.
I’ve not mentioned EU funds, not sure why you’re telling me to stop whining.
You still haven’t explained how the UK backstabbed France through AUKUS.
The article is about eu funds, that seemed obvious. Now you probably see no problem with your pm leveraging us power to have a contract broke (at aussies expense) and putting hundreds if not thousands jobs at risk and not taking 5 min to give a call. Funny thing is that aussies are going to get zero, Well done. In the meantime, the dutch were confident enough the order sub to the lazy French.
I’m appalled by this discussion!
Is the Kingdom of His Majesty King Charles III in the European Union? NO, so I don’t see why you should receive money when you don’t contribute to this European fund!
This discussion is pointless; it’s better to talk about something that’s truly important!
The UK is still somewhat of a satellite state of the USA.
So when we talk about trust, it’s just very hard to trust the UK as it tends to follow whatever nonsensical actions the USA is taking.
Of course, as a French person, this feeling is even stronger.
Despite this, to be honest, the UK is probably the closest country in Europe to France because we tend to have the same needs and closely the same goals around the world. No one in the EU shares the same interests.
To me, it’s all in the hands of the UK: keeping its position as a US lackey or becoming independent and willing to work with the EU instead of undermining any defense project in the EU.