In a recent parliamentary inquiry, James Cartlidge, the Conservative MP for South Suffolk, sought clarity on the UK’s policy regarding cooperation with the European Union on defence procurement.
He specifically requested information about the PESCO agreements with which the UK is currently engaged and any future interests the government may have in reviewing potential participation.
The question was addressed by Luke Pollard, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, who provided insights into the UK’s stance on European defence collaboration. He stated, “The UK is an intrinsic part of the European industrial base and is vital to developing the capabilities Europe needs, as well as ensuring resilient, strengthened European supply chains that also benefit UK security and industry. We enjoy extensive capability collaboration with our European neighbours, and expanding this is a priority for this Government.”
Pollard further elaborated on the UK’s aspirations, indicating a desire for a “new ambitious UK-EU security pact to strengthen cooperation on the threats we face and enshrine a new geopolitical partnership.”
He mentioned ongoing efforts related to the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) initiative, specifically noting that the UK is “progressing the UK’s application to join the PESCO Military Mobility project whilst also exploring other projects which align with UK interests on a project-by-project basis.”
What is PESCO?
Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) is a framework established under the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, aimed at fostering closer cooperation among EU member states in the field of defence. It allows participating countries to collaborate on military projects and enhance their military capabilities through joint initiatives. Currently, PESCO includes 26 of the 27 EU member states, with Malta being the only country opting out due to concerns about its neutrality.
PESCO’s main objectives are to improve the EU’s capacity to respond to security threats, enhance military readiness, and promote collaboration among European armed forces.
The initiative enables member states to engage in a range of defence projects, from developing new technologies to conducting joint training exercises. By participating in PESCO, countries can benefit from shared resources and expertise, ultimately strengthening the overall security landscape within the EU.
In addition to traditional military collaboration, PESCO encompasses various projects that address modern defence challenges, including cyber threats and hybrid warfare. The initiative has gained momentum in recent years, particularly in response to geopolitical developments that have underscored the need for a more coordinated European approach to security and defence.
“new ambitious UK/EU security pact” ? Oh dear, what will they do next? I thought we had a pact called NATO. Maybe we’ll need a new department to plan the setting up of this new talk shop.
Yes nato came first. UK has overly contributed to European security.
At least until it is dissolved.
👍
We have a Bilateral defence agreement with Norway, are you complaining about that too or are you just upset that we are building bridges with the EU?
Yet another talking shop to divert defence spending away from the areas that matter.
Yes, you are right, better to isolate UK so it will need to spend more for less…
😄👍😂
I think Oswald said much the same thing about the Casablanca conference…
Jokes aside though, it’s in the West’s interest to have as many security assistance treaties as possible, the more we can hang together the better.
Indeed if NATO looks like it is fracturing without other strong alliances it’s a certainty Russia and others will exploit Europes north and eastern frontiers. Even the likes of North Korea will be queuing up for a slice of the cake as their soldiers dying in Ukraine should be a clear cut warning as to the dangers.
Exactly. Like it or not, the EU is the biggest boy on our block. Acting like we don’t want to have mutual defence treaties and military cooperation with them is foolish in the extreme.
Yes, I keep saying the same about Ukraine thinking they can pretend Russia doesn’t exist but it upsets people.
Ukraine is sandwiched between Russia and the EU. It has the luxury of choosing which one it wants to be economically, militarily, and politically close to. Strangely, like so many ex soviet states, it chose the EU.
Nobody is saying Ukraine is going to pretend Russia doesn’t exist, except maybe some Vatniks selling a strawman, but Ukraine is in a position to choose to form alliances that means it can turn away from depending and relying on Russia, as it clearly has for the past decade.
Co-operation with the EU our closest ally and trading partner….euggh pass me a sharp knife I have a nose to cut off my face…
Actually out of the top 25 nations we export to, very few are EU. US is our top export customer nearly 2 times any other country and that’s without a trade deal. 3 of the top 6 are non EU. Yes as a block EU is bigger than any single country but we export more to India than we do Italy or Spain for instance. And the EU is pretty much flat lining in in growth, its likely other countries will advance up the top 25 list with EU countries slipping further down.
As for closest allies, well our next gen nuclear sub and 6th gen fighter, 2 our most advanced technology projects have very little EU involvement.
Not only that Europe isn’t that great at defence projects, Australia dumped its Airbus attack helicopters, Norway’s frigate supplied by the Spanish sank due to design issues. Germany has had huge problems with its subs, these aren’t complex nuclear powered attack subs like the Astutes either. Australia has called its NH90 helicopter problematic and getting shot of them. FCAS is already late. The A400 whilst excellent has a massive price tag. Even the problems with Ajax, our troublesome defence project is rumored to have been issues with the welding of the hulls done in Spain!!! You could sight the F35 as problematic project but Australia are dumping them like they are their far simpler EU helis.
I think in the end the frigate was pretty much found to be crew related issues and poor damage control procedures in a lean manned ship..essentially the 150 foot hole in the side was a big problem, but they then lost control of the vessel in the confusion and went bow first it straight into rocks ( which could have been avoided) ..then miscalculated when the ship would lose stability, the stability calculation tool was known to be wrong and because of the faulty calculations they abandoned ship to soon as well as leaving all the watertight doors open because they though they had run out of time to close them ( the stability tool told them it was not recoverable so they did not risk going below and securing the water tight doors)..
Think it goes beyond human error here an extract from.the findings below , design flaws mentioned the evacuation was rushed likely means doors were left open as there was no point securing them in some instance as the water tightness was anyway compromised. Ultimately the large hole may have sunk the ship but clearly there looks like there’s flaws. Of course Norwegian Navy is now talking to BAe to acquire T26😀,
Extract
Propeller shafts have to pass through multiple engineering spaces through watertight openings in the wall known as stuffing tubes or stuffing boxes that are supposed to tighten down as water tries to get through, preventing progressive flooding.
The board’s initial assessment based on crew interviews is that the stuffing boxes did not work as designed on Ingstad.
“This meant that the flooding became substantially more extensive than indicated by the original damage,” the report reads. “Based on the flooding of the gear room, it was decided to prepare for evacuation.”
The gearing room was the interesting one, as you said that was the decision point on stability, but that’s where the stability tool they were using for calculating was at fault, apparently the flooding in gear room was not really the final point at which the ship would loss stability..they had a few compartments left before they would actually loss stability. Like all catastrophic events, it was a bit of Swiss cheese event.
The report slso states further compartmets weren’t water tight so even if the stability tool had been correct, the vessel could have continued to flood.
I’ve not followed the Norwegian Navies approach to the UK on T26. It would be interesting to know if they have approached Navantia again as part of the selection process. Interestingly, Navantia had obviously refuted claims of bad design and construction saying it damaged their reputation but never actually persued it legally or not that I can see from anything published. Odd to leave it at that unless contesting it would have further exposed issues.
In the end though it all went down to poor watch keeping, getting a 150 long hole in the side of your ship by sticking it in front of a tanker is generally a fail all round..
in the end it was alway going to be a problem, the way the tanker went in all along the machine space, while at the same time heeling the frigate over..then grounding into rocks at 5ks and ripping a hole in the bow…pretty catastrophic really..it would be interesting to see how many ships would stay afloat
By your own numbers nearly half of the top 25 are EU and if you count the EU as a block the trade is not just bigger than any other country, it’s bigger by multiples. Our trade with the US (our number 1 trading partner according to you) is less than HALF the value of our trade with the EU.
Firstly theyre not my numbers they’re actual statistics so unlike some I don’t belive hyped one liners that suit a political narrative I do some research Yep, so well done EU countries are less than half our export so EU countries are not more important than RoW they are at best on par with RoW and thrrefore not our most important trading partners. FYI i have never had an invoice from the EU its always from a company thats based in a country, we don’t trade with the EU we trade with countries. US is in NAFTA again we don’t trade with NAFT but with the US Canada and Mexico individually. And guess what even when we were in the EU, we still traded at the country level, I know right, amazing. And guess what the countries in the EU also trade with other individual countries outside the EU, i know who would have dreamt of it. I notice you conveniently leave out the part where EU growth trajectory is lower than many of our trading partners, I’ll let that one go x
Yeah so it’s really funny how when you want to big up the US you emphasise how much we trade with them, and how important they are, and as soon as somone points out that the EU represents three times the trading value of the US suddenly it’s unimportant because although it’s a huge amount now it’s irrelevant.
And the point on invoices is just silly.
👍
Hi, from France, I really hope we can deepen collaboration with UK. I believe it is in everyone interest. For UK, European spendings are going upwards. Good market to address. For EU, nobody would decline a contribution of UK, given talent pool and expertise in UK.
Yes, it won’t make easy to get all the equipment we are collaborating with EU countries on like Challenger 3 and Boxer built more quickly and cheaper by collaborating with the EU bilaterally…
Yes. Also of course, thus allowing assorted new committees to spend our money feeling useful.
And with France ..
I was deliberately referencing Norway because it’s not in the EU, but yes, we have plenty of bilateral treaties with EU nations that are also in NATO.
PESCO is nothing like a bilateral treaty. Comparing apples to armchairs. And before you go off in some unfounded Brexit rant I voted remain.
Oh dear
Well said we will, should there be conflict in the high north (which I believe is highly likely considering Russia’s claims to the Arctic resources and its military potential) be tied up in defending Norway at the very least unless we want a vicious Anglo-Saxon hating Dictator across the North Sea. Had it not been for Ukraine’s brave efforts we would likely be in the early stages of that conflict already with Norway and its artic Islands being under serious threat.
My big caveat to that is, it depends on whether Sweden and Finland enter any war with Russia.
Because if they do, virtually none of the fighting will be in Norway, unless the rest of Scandinavia falls first. Fighting your way down Norway’s narrow and mountainous coast while we control the Flatlands to the East is just begging for an encirclement now.
Article 5
NATO is not getting us an improved trade framework and the US only considers us a security partner, it’s quite hostile on the economic froth to the UK.
That’s why a EU/UK security pact is on the table, in addition most of our security problems are European not Atlantic, not many illegal imigrants crossing the Atlantic.
… economic froth to the UK? Freudian slip? 🤔😳😉
Maybe, would be nice if sleepy joe could get some froth to us instead of Ireland 😀
I meant front 😀
Yeah but the problem with that is as Ukraine has shown the real threat to European security and indeed NATO is an increasing risk of US isolationism and the possible return of Trump.
What US decides is up to them. What Europe decides is up to us. If US goes into isolationism, it is something we don’t have a say on. If this comes, we have to be prepared. Just on nuclear deterrence, France + UK are strong together. And it is just one of the topics we can look at. Be they good times or bad times in the last century, the only unconditional ally of France was UK. We should really look more on what we can do together, not only on industrial topics. If NATO get void or say less clear, what can be the only cornerstone of a security architecture except UK and France uniting and aggregating other countries under a security agreement. I look at it and frankly, I see nothing else.
Exactly my point and there’s a lot more we could be doing within NATO to strengthen the European tier which can only be achieved by joint initiatives as unlike the US and Russia none of us are big enough to go it alone – 155mm ammunition production being a case in point. That having been said Ukraine has also proven that there are a lot of key capabilities that only the IS can provide, HIMARS, ATACM, Patriot etc all if which have proven pretty crucial to the defence of Ukraine. As for the concept of a joint UK – France nuclear deterrent we should prob remind ourselves that our Trident D5’s if not the warheads are all manufactured in the US.
US NOT IS ! 😄👎
I know that UK nuclear deterrent is build in US. Times may come were we shall work together on operational issues, may be more given rising uncertainty. My country being in mainland Europe, this is a possibility we never ruled out. What will be the fate of UK in case things turn sour, with a disengaging USA? This is the question of our time. I cannot foresee a prosperous UK alongside a devastated EU.
As soon as US pull out of NATO if they do, these questions will be on the table as EU member close to Russia will start to resist in best case or to align if no security provider do exist. This is what is at stake.
My position on this forum is fairly consistent, especially being a stranger. What do you love, in which world do you want to leave. Questions are almost on the table. And they are by no means easy ones. We will see what comes out of USA, but I would not bet the future of Europe at discretion of a foreign vote. Especially when the question is not temporary, but structural. Will the western world fail?
US build our Trident missile bodies, and not the warheads, not the boats.
I think there is a lot to be said for a more joined up approach around the UK and french deterrents, personally I think if the U.S. was ever to pull its umbrellas, the rest of Europe would need to look at its relationship with nuclear wespons and start to contribute in some way.
I think so too. The ground to ground nuclear missile France developed in the 1970’s was with a reach within Germany. So let say Germany did not want to be under such an umbrella, can’t blame them. On the other end, why should Paris alone be destroyed if we protect Poland. Why not Bruxelles, Madrid or Rome, just because we have the weapons. Could we trust an international body with no clear leadership to wield nuclear threats? No. Hence the core of the issue, the B61 and so on. Would we want to place an ASMP missile in the hand of Poland or Germany? Are we confident enough that their leaders will not bring us into a conflict we don’t want… I don’t see that happening in the near future, reminds me way too much WW1. So conventional it is then. And a closer and closer alliance with UK on these issues, should US pull out of Nato. This is the most serious approach. And see what happens around, what umbrella will look the most appealing in face of growing threats.
This is where the none proliferation treaty really comes to bite in Europe. It’s a bit of a joke considering the number of now none treaty nuclear powers ( there are probably a good 200 none treaty warheads) so it only really has meaning in Central Europe ( and for beating Iran. With) and it simply is a barrier to nations like Germany and Poland having their own independent deterrent, which to my mind they really should have. I think we can work with germany and Poland but they must each be independent deterrents. Personally I think every nations deterrent should be completely independent always ( just working with allies on the technical bits and maybe what each nations level of available response is ) because as you say having MAD hard build into treaty would be a very bad thing for the world.
In reality the control of the number of warheads has always been a bit of a joke and the START treaties have always been essentially pointless. Anything more than 500 warheads per side is redundant anyway as that 1000 warhead exchange would be a civilisation ending event and we have never got close to that level of arm’s reduction..essentially the crop and black soot models show even a 100 total warhead exchange would create significant mass starvation as worldwide crop outputs would drop around 10% for close to a decade for every 100 warheads used.
I have no clear answer on these topics. I just know it is a very serious one and it is on the table of UK and France now.
I am not sure the leadership of my country is able to undertake such decisions now, for a start. I am sure Poland is ready, Germany is confused for the time being. I don’t know for UK yet. And anyway, how stable would these policy be in years to come or on the long run… The EU body is not that strong yet, in minds and hearts, to fully bet on it.
Absolutely agree that the British and French should cooperate on nuclear deterrent issues, at least to the extent of ensuring the deconfliction of SSBN patrol zones. Am reliably informed that the Atlantic is a reasonably large body of water, thus it should not prove to be too difficult a task. Of course, there is the possibility that previous reports were merely apocryphal… 🤔😉
Actually, reasonably certain MoD/RN strives mightily to act as the mediator, and balance the sometimes competing interests, of the MN and USN, ala, most recently, AUKUS.
We´ll see. I don’t know what USA will become. But if USA pull the isolationism trigger, then we must look at immediate consequences. And if instead of this, USA behave like an hegemon, (can’t be blamed for that), instead of a partner treating ally with respect (the backbone of US foreign policy after WW2), then what will become the community of interest called the Western world?
The divide of US society is deep. I don’t like that, but can’t do a thing about it. And France leadership must take these elements in consideration. We won’t want to be treated like Vassal (not implying you mean that). And we must consider our security needs, which may not align with those of USA, who focuses more on China.
Europe needs to come together for joint defence, who knows what American cooperation will be into the future what with potentially dangerous maverick Presidents, an inward looking population some of whose see dictators as conservative allies and even a risk of self destruction through internal conflict and neglect. I will be a lot happier when Europe is capable of defending itself despite the vagaries of what goes on across the pond.
Jim, Pongoglo and Spyinthe sky. Forgive me if I answer all of you at the same time but only one thing to say really. No problems with the theory of alliances obviously but my concern is, do we have butter on our bread, never mind the jam. AUKUS, NATO, JEG,, umpteen bi national agrrements ie Norway (very important) and they are getting very serioius.
The question is can we do everything? The navy is still having problems: the RAF is short of certain aircraft and pilots and the army is re oganising for the fourth time ? On top of that we can’t recruit. Money needs to be spent on the front line, not getting yet another command stucture .
It’s not a zero sum game Geoff.
If we don’t have enough money then surely Europe not Asia pacific must be our focus.
I’m heading that way Jim. We are in difficult times whatever happens with the SDR. For sure we can’t do everything, certainly not successfully without a chunk of extra cash so we have to do what we can well…and fully equipped.
We can easily do everything as part of NATO+. Just have to make sure everyone else is sharing the load on both sides of the Atlantic.
If NATO + is off then yes we just double down on Europe.
I hope you’re right. Time will tell.
in the end the western Indian occean will always be a European security issue..that we will need to continue to focus on. The pacific is a bit more esoteric.
You’ll be waiting for infinity. Europe has no plans or means to reach the capability of defending itself.
Defend its self from who? Europe has more military personnel than the USA. Is America unable to defend itself?
Not fully all alone right now. Biggest issue is nuclear blackmail, second issue is volume of equipment and troupes available, third is logistiques. Nothing unsolvable, especially if UK and France create a strong nuclear alliance. This should be thought thoroughly together. France and UK together is the basis of all.
France and the UK have 8 ballistic missile submarine with 16 missiles a piece . That is far superior to what the Russian’s can really put in the water and almost on a par with the USA.
Europe doesn’t need protecting from anyone and if it did a rapid build on a land based nuclear weapon system and or air launched is about all its missing for defence.
Expeditionary warfare is a different story but Europe doesn’t need aircraft carriers and transport aircraft for defence.
I am not sure it is that simple unfortunately. The stone is too big. I’m afraid nuclear threats against conventional occupation is empty threat. The scale of violence is multi layers.
Nuclear deterrent is necessary to avoid any blackmail. But would you risk London for Oslo or Tbilisi? Let’s be serious. Would USA would risk Washington for Warsaw? No, it is not that simple.
Security alliances does not spread this way. It is a matter of reciprochial engagement, confidence and thrust. What Central European countries believes in is the vast stockpiles of arms in USA. Can’t blame them for this. They also feel they’ll never be blackmailed. This comes with US signature. UK and France united again could produce such a signature.
That’s always really been a bit of an issue with NATO especially in regards to Russia…would the nuclear powers ever really accept MAD to defend one of the Baltic states or say turkey. French policy around its strategic weapons has alway been clear, invade France you get a strategic response, not so clear about dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on a Polish armoured brigade….same with the Uk deterrence, drop a nuclear weapon on UK soil or any other weapon of mass destruction attack risk a strategic response…everything else not so clear.
Yes… that’s why Baltics presence is of utmost importance, as well as logistical readiness.
Arguably Europe could now defend against a depleted Russia in a conventional war.
Agreed, provided it remained a conflict confined solely to conventional arms. Not necessarily certain the farm should be wagered on that proposition, if Mad Vlad and/or acolytes remain in control of Mother Russia. 🤔
Si do I! Cheers from France
26 EU member states are signed up. Most of those are NATO members. Perhaps they’ve all got it wrong, and we should drop out of NATO as our allies are simply wrong-headed?
We have lots of bi and multi lateral defence agreements that interweave with NATO. By its nature NATO is both very broad and not really in some cases very deep. There are NATO nations we really have little to do with and others we have very close ties with and far more subtle geostrategic links.
we have:
The 2 Lancaster House agreements with france
The joint vision statement with Germany
The joint vision statement with the Netherlands includes the UKNLAF
A wide range of UK US defence agreements..most notably around nuclear and intel
The UK Norway strategic partnership
The UK Sweden solidarity agreement ( defence intel agreement)
The JEF MOU
There are also lots of bilateral and multilateral defence collaborations within NATO and external that we are not part of..probably the one we should be but have not been invited to is the Nordic defence co-operation group ( Denmark, finland, iceland, Norway, Sweden).
why the hell would we not have a joint co-operation agreement set up with the EU, it’s one of the largest and most powerful political bodies in existence and is next door as well as made up of our allies..of course there are things we may want to do together that don’t come under NATO activities…
Thanks Jonathan. I am aware of these but it’s not what concerns me. I have posted before about my concerns about the idea of joint military forces eg, a European army and of joint programmes such as what was the FCA or the Euro Tank. I do not want us to get bogged down with talk and shop in Europe when we should be buying the best regardless of their origin.
Some of those Euro equipment collaborations (design, development and/or collaborative manufacture) produce(d) decent kit – Jaguar, Tornado, FH70, Boxer, Puma HC Mk1.
The end result was non too bad for some but there were all sorts of disagreements, changes and delays along the way.
Yes but PESCO arrangements are very different particlary for defense equipment. These are not bilateral or multilateral equipment projects where we can negotiate an upper hand but are by governed by the PESCO council. As an example any design or IP that is created by a UK company participating is PESCO is the property of PESCO, even if it was a UK company working solely on that part of the design, it would have to cede it to PESCO. PESCO could then decide if they would let that company or the UK use that technology elsewhere or in another project with a non PESCO nation. PESCO council vote has to be unanimous so any Council member could block us exporting technology we acquire as part of a PESCO project.
Its a very risky arrangement which could even see tweak to existing UK technology done under PESCO mean the the newer version of it is entirely under the control of PESCO Council. The PESCO council may seem favorable to one UK government but of another party came to power could choose to be much more difficult and could even eject a project member.
I’m not against PESCO but we 100% need to pick and choose which projects we participate in, where we would gain technology rather than giving it away would be the obvious choices. Where we lead in technology make sense to retain the upper hand and work either with the EU outside PESCO or with non EU allies with a bespoke agreement that favours us.
However I somehow doubt we have government that will look after our best interests and will fall over itself to participate in any PESCO project if it gets brownie point form the EU.
I’d rather we worked on developing sovereign capability, wherever possible. The EU has a habit of using European supply chains and projects as leverage. During Covid we saw this behaviour. Galileo is another one, they promptly shut us out of. Labour are of course fixated with trying to reinvent the wheel. Or rejoining the EU in some other form.
The US was the same during Covid, as for Galileo, the reason the U.K. was restricted was due to the terms and conditions that the U.K. as a member state agreed to when it was a member. The terms and conditions were well known in advance.
Because the UK and the US aren’t doing the same?
It’s time to wake up, everyone is doing the same thing, because any sane organisation or country will try to do as much as they can for their benefits.
And the UK doesn’t carry enough weight to do anything to please it.
That’s the problem when you’re a small fish in a sea of big sharks.
Spot on I’m still shocked by the naivety of many when it comes to our national capabilities. There are a lot of enemies out there who wish to destroy us through a sense of historical hatred and our role as the ‘US sidekick’ makes us a target as a ‘safe’ way to hit at the US and gain revenge of the sins as they see it of our past. That won’t dissipate if the US heads off into the sunset. If we don’t have cooperation with allies then that threat will not be too far down the line.
US isn’t disappearing of into the Sunset unless we give them good cause to. Trump through his businesses has invested around £500m in the UK. And in his first meeting with Starmer he paid him compliments whereas Starmer made no comments! I don’t support Trump but he appears to make people very emotional which in turn blocks logic and critical thinking. That last comment is not directed at yourself just a wider view of the Trump dynamic.
Starmer made no comments because the entire British legacy media and security establishment suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome, just like their counterparts in the US, and he knew that whatever he said he would be pilloried for it.
Yep and that’s a very sad but also serious problem. And irony is it’s the same media and establishment that say Trump is the threat to democracy.
Wonder why people say the man that lead an inserection, and has said he’d be a dictator on day one and that if you vote for him you’ll never have to vote again, could be a threat to democracy…
Please point me to any extract, x post YouTube, tik tok post, etc. Or feed where Trump has said that. I’m open mind don’t support Trump and will openly entertain any evidence you provide. Of course you probably think Trump is a liar so if you do.provide something to support your claim how do you know its true he could of course be lying. What a conundrum 😀
I’m quoting him. UKDJ doesn’t support links, but if you google it his speeches will come right up.
If you don’t know about those speeches or his role in the January sixth insurrection however, I don’t think you’re really qualified to opine on this.
He IS threat to democracy! Just listen to what he says and read what he writes!
The 6th wealthiest nation on the planet, the 8th largest manufacturing nation on the planet, the 6th largest defence budget on the planet, a strategic nuclear power, a Permanent member of the UN Security Council and a member of 5 eyes, is NOT any kind of small fish!
Absolutely with you on this. Long overdue. Anybody who thinks we can rely on the French or the Germans, and others, needs to look again at the last twenty years of so called joint plans and programmes. Not just with the UK but with each other. The real success story though is the JEG and that’s where I would spend our time and money.
The response is interesting mind. It’s sort of an EU nationalism mixed in with various straw man arguments about the USA. We saw during Covid how reliance on these supply chains leaves us vulnerable. Investment in sovereign capability, as you have alluded too, doesn’t mean being isolationist. It means recognising the risks involved in dealing with duplicitous organisations and countries like the EU and managing them. Unfortunately politics and British governments, being what they are, means frequently they are ignored. Fortunately we still as a nation have an economy capable of producing our own kit and tech, if we invest in it. I’m reminded of Jim Callaghan, who reminded Margaret Thatcher the ships being sent to the Falklands, were built in part by his government. Which I suspect is why we still have a ship building industry.
I agree. An example today,albeit non technucally defence. Rolls Royce has made a loss fo £78 million on its nuclear subsidary whilst the last government dithered and now we have Milliband.(?) As you rightly say isolationism is dangerous. Looking inwards to invest has to be good news, even if mid/long term. I am old enough to remember the ins and outs and promises broken in defence programmes, mostly caused by the politicians. We are stuck with them but defence, like the NHS , should not have to party political. I dream on.
The sell out of the UK to Brussels continues.
We are not the only non-EU nation involved in PESCO, Norway, Turkey, the US, and Canada are involved in the PESCO partnership. One of the many reasons why PESCO was set up in the case the US pulled out of NATO.
Ahhh, did not realize US was also a participant in the PESCO partnership. Wonder how the AUKUS partners will handle complementary/overlapping R&D initiatives? Will this ultimately prove to be the genesis/impetus for a stampede of interest in joining AUKUS Pillar 2 initiatives, by both EU and NATO countries?
Wiki has a list of projects that are majority EU-based, this is no doubt in conjunction with the European Defence Fund, so no non-EU nations. Some of the non-EU nations working with PESCO are involved in the military mobility project. As far as I am aware Liz Truss partnered with PESCO in October 2022, and in November 2022 we were invited to join the mobility project.
The non-EU PESCO participants excluded from majority/all of R&D projects?
Interesting, but not necessarily inspiring…🤔😉
The sell out was treating the 2016 referendum as valid when it was a democratic joke.
Democratic joke if it had gone the other way?
Thank you for saying that. Ten days before the vote Farage gave an interview where he suggested that if he lost by 52% to 48% he would demand another referendum before the next election and he would expect to get one or there would be ‘trouble’. He refused to clarify what he meant by that.
Leave won by 51.7 to 48.3 and suddenly Farage was saying there cannot be another referendum. If ‘they’ try to have one there will be trouble. Again numerous interviewers tried to draw him out on what he meant over the following months but he would not clarify.
The Tory leadership surrendered to terror fearing their vote would collapse in a civil war within the Tory’s if they stood up to him and his thugs (At that point Leavers were the only people to have killed an MP this century).
They got away with it because Corbyn and the hard left hate the EU for the same reason the hard right do. It is clean and offers a model for democratising the UK away from the FPT system that allows
the current Labour/Tory stitch up
.
In fact the run up to the ‘referendum’ had approx 30 opinion polls asking people what they wanted and they showed a clear Remain majority of 53/4 to 46/7. Of course they were not asking how people were planning to vote but what they really wanted.
The British people and Parliament had been told that this was not a binding referendum, just a consultation.That was it legal status. It had been described on lots of TV programs and numerous newspaper articles as been an exercise to abort a Tory civil war.
On the day Torys (mainly leaver) turned out. Some others did but many just felt ‘let the B******s scratch one another eyes out, who cares, it is just an opinion poll’.
This is why for the first two years the protest marches were about ‘You have had your consultation. now if you want to take us out a proper referendum please’. Then as it became apparent Labour was betraying the country they switched to asking for a poll on the terms.
There is no democratic case for saying the British people ever voted for leave yet alone the extremely hard and damaging exit we got.
Then you have the fact of Russian interference in the referendum. When challenged on this the Court of Appeal said they could not review the evidence as it was only a consultative referendum and they could only review binding referendums.
Thanks to Arron Bank’s arrogance this has now gone to court and it has been proving to a criminal burden of proof that Leave EU was illegally funded by Russian money of unknown provenance.
Funding Leave s the best money the FSB ever spent. It caused massive damage to the UK and western Europe generally. It spawned the UKIP/Brexit/Reform chain that spent two years undermining the governments COVID plans probably adding tens of thousands to the death toll and tens of billions to our debt. The same people are behind our recent riots that have undermined our international reputation.
The Leave/UKIP/Brexit/Reform chain are out enemy within. There is not much point in spending money on external defenses until we have dealt with them.
So it’s safe to assume you didn’t vote leave then?
Dear God!…Nerve somewhat touched there? I think you’ll find legitimate EU scepticism may even pre-date the creation of the FSB. Yes it is actually legitimate to be sceptical of the EU. It’s not blasphemy you know. The EU is a terrible decision-making machine.
Guess what
Leave won
Over the years you must of kept the handkerchief industry in work with the amount of crying you have and are still doing
And this from a remainer
Now please give it a rest
Did Leave give it a rest when we joined the EU?
No.
So it’s a bit rich to demand that rejoin shut up.
We never joined the EU
What we joined was the EEC (common market ) which in those days was just a trading block
We never had a referendum to join the EU
When we did get the chance of a referendum to remain a member of a political club that we never had a vote to join most sane people rejected it
Lol so then if we never joined the EU we didn’t have to leave it did we.
Again, Leave never shut up about wanting to leave the EU FROM THE MOMENT WE JOINED. So get off your high horse demanding people shut up about rejoining.
You know very well what happened
Perhaps I didn’t explain I correctly
Whe joined a “trading block” back in the early 70s which was known as the EEC and then in the late 90s the EEC turned into a political organisation know today as the EU
We were never given the opportunity to agree or disagree to become members of what is now known as the EU we were tricked as it was never explained to us that it would turn into what it is today
Largest turnout ever for a referendum. The people spoke and the Government acted. How is that a democratic joke?
Right result for the wrong reason. I voted remain but am quite pleased to see the way things are turning out. I agree with Starmer’s interpretation of what happened in Brexit: that the electorate had sensed (correctly) that government of the UK was not working i,e. they and their families and the nation as whole were in a declining spiral. The debate was about who or what is responsible. This crystallised as, Brussels or Westminster? In either case it is necessary to part from the EU so that you can see the wood from the trees. At the last election having made that break, the country judged that most of our problems are probably down to ourselves and that we needed internal change before we look to blame someone else. This is the road we are on now. Neither right nor left traditional ideologies are appropriate. Realism and pragmatism are the way forward; a charitable disposition will be at a premium!
Thanks Paul. A very interesting ‘take’ on Brexit.
Just my take. There will be a lot of resistance. The risk is that you upset everyone and please no-one. But the objective is to re-invent and re-position ourselves in a changed world. As to practical changes, there are some early clues emerging. The govt have held the line on pensioners heating allowance, and also VAT on private school fees and dealing with the planning nimbys. They have bought off the unions with new deal for workers etc. It also looks like HS2 will run into Euston ( lets face it Old Oak Common would have made us look a laughing stock) and that Birmingham to Manchester will be an additional line not for higher speed but to add capacity which is now understood, correctly, to be the real issue. It looks like govt borrowing rules will be relaxed to fund capital investments (broken election promise for hospital scanners and HS2, maybe H&W? ) but the £22 now £25b shortfall in current year spending will be closed by extra taxation on capital gains and pension contributions. A lot of faith will be placed on the metro mayors to attract sound investments for the govt to support. Lots of pain to bail out after the capsize; everyone on the pumps. The govt will be accused of broken promises by the opposition and betraying their own supporters. They will need broad shoulders and thick skins. As to implications for defence, I think we will see a commitment to increase army numbers, army re-equipment, recruitment, fast jets and the frigates: programs which create UK jobs. Beyond that I wouldn’t hold your breath. It’ll be make the best of what you’ve got.
Better that than the sell out to the US or even China that many favoured Farage the former, Cameron the latter. Being in with Countries one’s own relative size and importance is surely preferable to being a minion to be played with by far superior ones with only self interest at their core. To do so at the expense of our defence is shear madness.
I always said the UK’s choices are to be Primus inter-Pares (or at least one of the Primii) in Europe, or a appendix to the US.
There’s another possibility. UK could become a haven of democratic stability and good sense in a world which is increasingly disordered. The old post WW2 world order is passing. The US is divided and getting weaker, the EU is struggling with an identity crisis. The Lisbon mistake was to chose secular French republicanism rather than Christianity. China is the new kid on the block. India is looking after No 1, Africa is a basket case. 3rd world nations are watching and waiting to see whether the axis of authoritarian states wins out over ‘the west’. I would argue that political ( and moral) leadership in Europe has passed from the France – German EU ‘locomotif’ to Poland, Italy and the UK, with UK as tacit leader: and that we are skilfully using our strengths in diplomacy and defence to build a secure future for ourselves. It’s all going to work out. There’s no way Mandarin and Confuscus is going to win out over English and Arsenal.
Pathetic comment, in the context of current economic and military situation.
The strongest defence always involves strong alliances. Whatever we think of the the EU it’s in our best interests to encourage its member states to have strong connections with us and us with them. It’s delusional to think that our defence industries aren’t already deeply integrated with EU ones and the idea of totally independent supply chains belongs to sometime in the 1960s. Most of the weaponry being supplied to Ukraine already has multinational components.
Cooperation always trumps isolation.
Inaccurate nonsense!
Pesco? Isn’t that what you put on pasta? Seriously though, weapons development is expensive and it’s wise to have an alternative to the US. They will appreciate us being able to fend for ourselves in dealing with Russia as they focus on China.
It’s Tescos Finest Pesto!
This is always more noise than any actual change, problem with all these partnerships with the EU is the EU thinks it’s defence majors will sell more to the UK and the UK vice versa when reality is that it’s quite limited what national governments are going to order that’s not home produced.
Hmmm…interesting, PESCO apparently has a mandate at least as broad as AUKUS Pillar 2, w/ no apparent geopolitical baggage/resistance. And the UK represents the intersection of the respective Venn diagrams. One might be tempted to state that the UK should benefit materially/singularly from participation in the various R&D initiatives. Presumably an enviable position? 🤔😳😉
It’s the one advantage we have is that we are big enough to matter in defence cooperation and small enough to fit it. We can and are working with USA, Japan and EU.
However this also prevents us from going our own way on projects like say France or the USA do.
We are also working with France and Germany and Italy.
The UK belongs in the Anglosphere, not some corrupt little group of shysters like the EU.
The anglosphere doesn’t exist outside of military circles. If it did we would have a trade agreement with the USA. Those EU shysters happen to be our biggest customers and suppliers.
I don’t engage with trolls.
Trolls – Jim being one of the longest serving and informed contributers tonite little group – Trolls – who indeed are you ?
Thanks for the compliment 😀
To OUR – not tonight !
Out of our top 25 trading partners,
United States: US$71.2 billion (13.7% of total UK exports)
Germany: $39.9 billion (7.7%)
Netherlands: $37.2 billion (7.2%)
Switzerland: $35.4 billion (6.8%)
Ireland: $34.12 billion (6.6%)
China: $34.1 billion (6.6%)
France: $29.3 billion (5.6%)
Belgium: $21.3 billion (4.1%)
Hong Kong: $16.1 billion (3.1%)
India: $12.5 billion (2.4%)
Italy: $12.1 billion (2.3%)
Spain: $11.7 billion (2.3%)
United Arab Emirates: $9.2 billion (1.8%)
Poland: $8.2 billion (1.6%)
Türkiye: $8 billion (1.5%)
Canada: $7.6 billion (1.5%)
Singapore: $7.5 billion (1.4%)
Japan: $6.9 billion (1.3%)
South Korea: $6.1 billion (1.2%)
Australia: $5.8 billion (1.1%)
Sweden: $5.7 billion (1.1%)
Saudi Arabia: $5.5 billion (1.1%)
Qatar: $4.3 billion (0.8%)
Norway: $4 billion (0.8%)
Brazil: $3.2 billion (0.6%)
EU isn’t growing anymore, as for countries we export to, 3 of the top 6 are non EU and guess who’s number 1. Fairly obvious from the list of our top export countries the number the EU countries aren’t our biggest customers rather make up a handful of them. Hong Kong and India are more important to us than Italy or Spain in supplying us with export revenues for instance.
This is also why Labour has not put tariffs on Chinese EV because we export more Jags and Landrovers to China than we do to Germany, so what if we substitute German cars for Chinese EV, were an net importer either way it and Chinese EV are cheaper so drops the balance of payments. China’s a bigger and more important export market for UK prestige marks so hence why the government has not followed the EU tariffs. Not going to get into the geopolitics of trading with China or the quality and security aspects but from an Economic perspective Labour prioritising China’s and UKs auto industries over EU’s makes sense.
So by your numbers the value of our trade with the US is 71 Billion, and our trade with the EU is 197 billion…
We don’t trade with the EU we trade with countries. The number shows some countries do more trade with us than others, and it’s glaringly obvious from the numbers that being in the EU doesn’t make a country a premium trading partner, a number of EU countries don’t even make the list!. I voted remain as thought being inbthe EU on balance was a good thing but I’m not deluded about the trading relationship. Loosing trade with the RoW even the US would be a massive blow to the UK economy causing a massive recession, so to say EU is our most important trading partner is gross misrepresentation of the facts.
We trade with the EU, because it’s a common market. Sorry to burst your bubble of delusion there.
No we trade with the EU, EU member states cannot conduct trade negotiations.
29 countries in the EU. If you add them up you will find it’s our largest trading partner by far. We dont have a single trade agreement with an EU state but we have multiple with US states, not sure why you would individually list EU states and not US ones when discussing trade.
The free trade deal was just about to be signed with Canada and then the UK had a problem with beef imports from Canada. That deal is now stalled.
I don’t engage with trolls.
Neither do I.
It appears anyone who doesn’t agree with you is automatically a troll…
Most of this is probably re-stating what we are already doing.
The UK and Europe have had an easy ride on defence for decades, leaving the USA to carry the load through its considerably higher defence expenditure and advanced capabilities. These easy days are long since over and Europe needs to be able to stand on its own two feet.
One key reason why is that the US pivoted its main defence effort to the Pacific and away from NATO. That happened under Obama, who gave Europe clear notice that it would need to carry more of the weight in NATO. Europe can no longer rely on massed military reinforcement from the USA.
This will be doubly so if Trump is re-elected, due to his nationalist and isolationist stance. We can expect nothing good to come out of a Trump presidency regarding the status of NATO and European defence, in fact the reverse: he is a gullible schill for Putin.
A key driver for Europe and PESCO is our collective reliance on US-made equipment, and the high costs and restrictions imposed to benefit US manufacturers. The US has exploited the fragmented European defence market, due to its larger defence expenditure and production runs, compared to the much smaller European national champions.
When the European countries work together, the game changes considerably. The 3 big US civil/military giants shrank to one when Airbus came along and turned it into a two man competition with Boeing. Similarly with MBDA, we are no longer entirely dependent on US missile technology. Likewise with Tornado, Typhoon and we hope Tempest.
One part of PESCO’s role is to foster that European manufacturing and development to make it largely self-sufficient in technology and supply chain. The UK benefits from all these joint efforts, as long as we participate. A 25% share of something is a heck of a lot better than 100% of nothing, which we all too often get from our US purchases.
The Government is strategically correct, both militarily and in manufacturing production, to get us involved in European defence initiatives. We can only benefit.
Talk of our aligning ourselves with the ‘anglosphere’ and away from Europe is a throwback to the mindset of the sixties and the end of empire. It means dependence on big brother USA, who treat us as a sort of useful minor hanger-on. PESCO doesn’t mean that we can’t shop around for deals with Japan, Australia or whoever, just that a lot of high-end equipment development and procurement needs to be done in partnership with others, and the European countries are among the most advanced in the world, at least a match for US and Chinese technology.
By carrying the load do you mean invading and occupying countries in the Middle East?
I do believe in NATO, however! It is time that Europe (I say Europe instead of EU as I am including Norway and the UK as well) need to be able to defend themselves. The US as Trump has shown can no longer be garanteed to come to the aid of Europe if it was attacked. So help from the US should be seen as a nice to have but not really needed. When I look at the combined defence European budget it is the second largest in the world. The issue the way I see it is duplication of requirements, administration and split buying power. A simple example would be the UK needs x amount of shells, German need y amount of the same shell, and France needs z amount. The supplier sees three diffrent smaller orders so the cost is increased for a small order. The US needs z+ amount of shells the order is three times larger than the UK so it is cheaper. However the same US order is smaller than the combined German France UK order but the Europeans pay more due to them being three individual smaller orders. This is what needs to be sorted out.
I also think that European nations do need to ramp up to 2.5% GDP as a minimum. If nations wish to have independent development programs then that should be over the collective 2.5%. Strangly enough I think that the US would feel a bit uneasy with a Europe that would be more than capable to defend itself as a threat
European nato has more personnel than the USA so why don’t you think it can defend itself? Who does it have to defend itself against?
So quick question then, why are we ie Europe relying on the US to arm Ukraine, as per your view we have more capability in Europe than the US. Without the US supporting Ukraine, as we saw over the winter Ukraine wasn’t unable to hold back Russia Given your analysis then surely that shouldn’t be the case if Europe could defend its self without the US it would have been able to flood in arms to the same level as the US can….. but the kicker is we can’t, go figure.
We are not relying on anyone to arm Ukraine. It’s not Europes responsibility to arm Ukraine, it’s the responsibility of all the free democratic countries of the world to arm Ukraine.
Why would you think Britain or Spain is obligated to arm Ukraine but the USA isnt? America shares a boarder with Russia and we are thousands of miles away.
Our common security is based on the North Atlantic area not Europe alone.
The US is is sending much less aid to Ukraine than Europe is.
You missed the point, your assertion is US isn’t defending us. But Ukraine points to the rather obvious fact that Europe alone supply arms can’t hold Russia back and Europe despite its force size is missing key components, this is playing out in Ukraine with Europe not having certain capabilities. So you’re assertion that Europe has been capable of defending its self is wide of the mark. And if we move beyond arms to intelligence capabilities particularly in space Europe again is seriously lacking and will take decades to catch the US. Tactical nukes, Europe without the US inventory would be massively disadvantaged as another example.
But Europe now out manufactures the US by a long way on most munitions. No one had sufficient stockpiles to give Ukraine enough shells to fight WW1. Together we had much more to give Ukraine.
As with everything, the devil will be in the detail.
The world has changed. The US now sees China as its biggest threat and expects Europe to hold the European line against Russian authoritarianism. The Ukraine is the front line. Russia is trending towards a status as China’s proxy. As the ice melts we will need to defend the North Atlantic approaches; Norway becomes a strategic partner. The disorder and the effects of climate change in Africa and the ME are driving refugees into Europe. Everything points to a defence strategy based on an expanded and inclusive Europe.
Pollard further elaborated on the UK’s aspirations, indicating a desire for a “new ambitious UK-EU security pact to strengthen cooperation on the threats we face and enshrine a new geopolitical partnership.”
If that’s the case why is America trying to drag European powers into Asia?
America had around 100,000 personnel in Europe and Europe had 1.8 million. Who do you think is guarding Europe?
Good question. Perhaps because India is not committed to the West? In any case, if I were the US its what I would do.
And I am happy to support the US and Japan as long as they are supporting Europe.
Initial noises to pave the way for TEMPEST merged with the EUs offering?
And not just with aviation, I hope technology transfer goes both ways?
Rather than a previously mentioned scenario here where certain continental nations absorb tech handed to them, say thanks very much, and go on to incorporate it and exploitit to their industrial advantage where our half wit governments don’t.
I have read in certain aviation publications over the years that aviation tech is an area of close co operation between US/UK.
Much like intelligence, submarines, nuclear, and all the rest.
Any UK collaboration with wider European NATO/EU nations might be hindered by the fact that the US shares tech R&D with us on a certain levels, that should not be handed to other allies.
It leaves the UK somewhat stuck between the two.
Very true, that’s one thing about the French they do go there own way on Defence platforms system’s etc rather than relay on other nations .
The down side of PESCO on defence equipment projects is that any tech developed as part of it is essentially property of PESCO (essentially the EU). So example Martin Baker develop some new tech to enhance an ejection seat under PESCO. They would not be free to apply the technology elsewhere. So even if MB did all the work, as it was part of a PESCO project its not the property of MB or the UK. It could not, for instance, incorporated the tech into a seat being designed for another aircraft without PESCO approval. PESCO could seriously impact our ability to export and collaborate outside Europe. It needs to be used only where we would gain tech from other nations in PESCO and not where we would effectively be handing it over. But the problem is the UK is outside the current PESCO membership so has to be invited. There 2 reasons why we would get invited. 1) Money to fund projects 2) They need our technology, but it then becomes PESCO property.
PESCO is a different beast to individual agreements where the UK can negotiate terms favourable to the UK. PESCO is governed at ac PESCO council level so although project members, which can be a subset of members, control the project the Council of all members have overreach and final say. This is important because the council vote on a matter has to be unanimous, so if the UK asks the council to grant UK export right a technology developed under PESCO all member must agree.
On TEMPEST Labour has said a 6th Gen fighter is important but not given the same level of support to GCAP and AUKUS. Merging FCAS is a rather obvious choice it gives us 6th Gen fighter so politically and for the average voter the end result is the same as GCAP. It would make up for the Tories screwing the French on AUKUS, ticks box there. GCAP is the elephant in the room on EU defence cooperation potentially taking sales from FCAS. I would be very surprised if joining FCAS has not been at least raised with France and Germany. We know GCAP has been discussed with Japan and Italy and I would think the government will gauging the size of the political fallout is worth the political gain in the EU.
God, you can see it coming.
I prefer sticking with Japan on this.
I can’t think of any recent aviation development cooperation with the US recently primarily as its contractors are our biggest competitors while Europes are our biggest collaborators.
The US defence industry milked us for years through the 50’s and 60’s for ideas, people and tech.
Look into Warton, MoD, DERA, and DARPA, and the BAES SPS mate.
👍
The newUK/ EU security pact needs to be on the table and alongside renegotiating the crap BREXIT deal BoJo delivered up, which was actually shite. The UK should definitely not loose sight of the fact , where defence and security is concerned they need us more than we need them.
In theory, PESCO is a nice idea. Military and industrial co-operation between notionally like-minded countries. Potential issues though (trying to strip out the more hysterical rants on both sides and just focus on the facts) are:
Every time I see something like this I ask the same question. You can have all the treaties you like, but who is going to do the fighting.
I thought I read sometime ago that PESCO meant ‘Permanent European Security Cooperation Organisation’?? Am I wrong/ deluded?