The UK is seeking to participate in the European Union’s newly established Security Action for Europe (SAFE) fund, according to a written parliamentary response by Defence Minister Luke Pollard.
The move follows the formal adoption of SAFE by the European Council on 29 May 2025 and the conclusion of a Security and Defence Partnership between the UK and the EU earlier this year.
Responding to a question from Liberal Democrat MP Victoria Collins, Pollard confirmed that the UK now meets the eligibility criteria to discuss involvement in the SAFE instrument. “We welcome all European efforts to increase defence spending and provide the critical capability uplift needed by Europe,” he wrote, referencing both the SAFE fund and the EU’s wider ReArm initiative aimed at strengthening defence production.
The SAFE instrument is designed to consolidate EU member states’ efforts in co-financing urgent defence procurement and replenishment, particularly in light of ongoing support to Ukraine and the need to rebuild European stockpiles. While the UK is no longer an EU member, the new Security and Defence Partnership establishes a framework for cooperation on shared priorities, including industrial collaboration and defence innovation.
Pollard noted that Defence Secretary John Healey has already discussed the UK’s ambition to explore SAFE cooperation with European Commissioner for Defence and Space, Virginijus Sinkevičius Kubilius. “Recognising the important role that the UK’s world-leading defence industry plays for European security, the Defence Secretary has already engaged Commissioner Kubilius on our ambition to swiftly explore the potential for enhanced cooperation under SAFE,” Pollard said.
The UK is also continuing bilateral engagement through other avenues, including the recently updated Lancaster House 2.0 agreement with France, which deepens joint industrial cooperation and strategic planning.
SAFE participation would mark a notable shift in post-Brexit UK-EU defence relations, signalling greater alignment in face of shared security threats.
Without participating in the fund, why would the UK benefit from it?
Opening the fund to the UK is a backdoor for the US.
So you may not like this, but without a strict agreement, the UK should not have access to anything.
Just like the fund should focus solely on EU industrial projects. It makes no sense to open EU funds for something that is not in the EU, as it means the funds will leave the EU. It’s as simple as that.
One of our objectives is to ensure that European money remains in European hands, between Europeans of course, but not outside the ones paying for it.
It’s the only way for an european industry & economy to live.
Just to remember[https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/european-defence-fund-edf-official-webpage-european-commission_en]:
The EDF is the Commission’s instrument to support Research and Development in defence.
Its main goals are:
To promote cooperation between companies, including SMEs and research actors throughout the Union.
To boost defence capability development through investments.
To help EU companies develop cutting-edge and interoperable defence technologies and equipment.
Readed to fast, as the title was about the EDF itself.
The main idea is the same, but the SAFE is a bit different much more open and vast then the EDF.
> SAFE will also allow acceding countries, candidate countries, potential candidates and countries that have signed a Security and Defence Partnerships with the EU, such as the United Kingdom, to join common procurements.
When talking about procurement, of course it should be as large as possible.
For EU credits to be spend on UK (for example), same issue than with the EDF, why ?
The purpose of the fund is not to provide an economic stimulus package to the EU- the purpose of the exercise is primarily to optimise re-armament efforts, which you achieve by spending money wherever it can most efficiently deliver that outcome, whether within the EU or not. Why would Norway seek to buy T26 frigates from us when we aren’t operating any kind of common defence fund with them? Because it’s the kit they want and we are in a position to supply.
That’s the issue: both are possible and represent the most desirable outcome. Some spending could be outside the EU, but it should be a minority.
You’ve just laid out that your mission is in fact to not buy American tech, rather than to rearm Europe. So you’re willing to hamstring Europe for the sake of some uninformed childish resentment.
Hate to break it to you, but EU economies work by being connected to the US, and will continue to do so long after this orange turd is gone – the world is a global economy (3.5 years in, and Europe is still buying Russian Gas ffs – how much have EU countries spent on JSF alone?).
These kind of bullshit shenanigans is what hamstrings Europe at every turn. Although soveriegn IBs are key in long term planning for European security, there is a level of expediciency when it comes to developing capabilities in the short term that is rather important at the moment. What about stuff that only the US have, say P8s, Patriot or F35? I would far rather UK and Europe buy each other’s stuff when possible, but isolating the UK because you’re afraid they’ll buy American is unbelievably shortsighted, practically impossible to avoid and politically damaging to the ultimate goal.
Rearming the EU is also about not collapsing economies and stimulating domestic industries for the greater good.
Just because you don’t buy from the US doesn’t mean you can’t rearm. Do you realize how low it is to think otherwise?
You are talking about 3 weeks, I’m talking about 3 decades.
You’re not grasping the point at all. “Not buying from the US”, is a secondary or even tertiary consideration, if and only if the short term capability gaps can be filled by current or very near term European availability. Planning and investment over decades should always look to balance cost/return for capability requirements with sovereign resillience. But your entire approach is to use “boycott the USA” as the guiding principle in the short term. The SAFE fund, is NOT about 30 year planning, it is about rearming over the next five years. 150 Billion Euros isn’t a huge amount considering the number of countries involved and Defence costs in general. In short, your argument falls apart on multiple fronts.
Of course, “European availability” is of great importance and is one of the few exceptions to the rule. But if you look at what exists in Europe, there isn’t much that could be used under this rule except for the F-35 (That is, like it or not, the lone 5th gen available).
You are talking as if 40+% of what is needed in Europe can only be bought in the US, that’s wrong. Even if you remove the French industry (as I can already predict some people thinking I say this because of France’s special position), you have decent if not top tier EU made system.
In neither of your replies have you engaged with any of the points I’ve raised.
You’re ignoring compatability considerations, (what about missiles for MK41 vs Sylver? What about missile integration into F35?). And you’re ignoring the big picture, which is “Europe needs to rearm, QUICKLY”, as well as “Europe needs to develop its strategic defence industrial base over the next years and decades”.
The first of these needs is what the SAFE fund is for. The second is what European Defence depts and governments need to plan spending for now, for returns in 10 years time and into the future – but THIS IS NOT WHAT THE SAFE FUND IS FOR. So, shutting UK out, which provides much of Northern Europe’s defence from the N. Atlantic, and provides C2 and training capabilities that almost none of the other European militaries could, is just foolish – particularly if, as your reasoning suggests you believe, it is a good idea to ‘punish’ the US DIB for the foreign policy of their current administration. You’re using student union politics to inform geopolitics and imminent defence threats.
Hermes carried messages from the Gods – whoever’s writing your communiques needs to do their homework.
Re-arming the EU NECESSARILY means decoupling EU military spending from US MICs. As long as buying from the US is a major output it will always be an economic negative and hamstring the development of an EU defence program.
Yes, in the medium to long term, Europe absolutely needs to do this and should be making investment decisions now that reflect that. But the SAFE fund is a 150 Billion pot to get European countries to fighting readiness, not to redesign European DIB (there isn’t enough money for that!). For things like drone production Europe is well positioned to invest domestically now, as expendables at least won’t be too complex a project to set up, but cutting edge stuff to replace MQ level platforms will require years of R&D, which countries should be doing!, just not with this particular pot of cash as the time til ROI is too long to be a solution to the current problem.
My point is, replying to Hermes^, using “boycott USA” as a guiding principle is unrealistic in the short term. In the short term, we need to rearm quickly to present a credible deterrence to Russia and be able to back Ukraine whenever a peace deal comes – if that’s European kit or American it doesn’t matter, capability matters. Untangling from US systems and replacing them domestically will take years and decades, and so shutting UK out of the SAFE fund because “they might buy some American stuff” (which is what Hermes thinks is a good reason the UK shouldn’t be allowed to access it) makes very little sense pratically and is a very poor move diplomatically.
This is not the world I’d like to be in, but it’s the one we’ve got. Deal with it as it is, and plan for a better one, with far fewer American contracts.
You didn’t even read about SAFE or understand what I said. Stop gaslighting other people.
What is the overwhelming threat that requires vast stocks of US equipment ? The enemy is Russia, a nation that is in no position to fight and win against the largest nations in Europe, let alone the whole of European NATO. Western and Eastern Europe has vast industrial overmatch against Russia, the equipment it produces is far superior.
SSN: the UK and France match easily Russian SSN production and their SSNs are better than Russian SSNs.
Surface combatant’s:. Europe has an insane overmatch of major surface combatants compared to Russia and can significantly out produce the U.S… Russia is no longer even capable of producing large surface combatants over 5000 tons. Europe can easily produce 6-8 large surface combatants a year if it puts it mind to it.
Aircraft carriers… umm yes.
MBTS: well Europe has about 6500 MBTS about 3000 are modern and in service.. that’s way more modern MBTs than Russia.. production wise Europe builds about 100 MBTs a year but has the capability to build 300.
missiles: Europe has one of the best complex weapon manufacturers on the planet and produced the full range of complex weapons..
fighter jets: produces two of the very best 4.5 generation aircraft on the planet. Europe has 1700 operational fast jets.. 400 are new 700 very good 600 a bit obsolete.. against a Russian airforce that has 800 fighter jets with most considered obsolete and not even operational.
There is very little European nations don’t produce or could not produce in short order…
People need to be clear..at this very moment Russia is not a significant military threat to Europe.. E NATO could and would destroy the Russian military..after all at present Russia is in stalemate with a military 10 times smaller then ENATO.. the issue is potential trajectory of re-arming essentially if russia beats Ukraine, then undertakes a massive rearmament and is supported in this by china then in theory if ENATO does nothing it’s at risk of fighting a war at closer to parity than it
Would like.
So yes we have time to buy European.
Hermes what a Nom de Plume “The Greek Winged Messenger of the Gods and Commerce” well it looks like somewhere along the way you lost a message or three.
Firstly we left the EU, no one picked our islands up and relocated us to somewhere in the South Pacific, which is a shame as we might then have better weather and save a fortune on Holidays to European beaches.
Secondly we are probably the most European Nation in Europe as we are a mix of Celtic, Italian, Germanic, Scandinavian, French plus a dollop of Polish and Spanish. Which is why our language is so easy for most European countries to pick up as the they all find something of theirs in ours and we struggle and just speak loudly and Slowly. We alop have wicked sense of humour so if you go round the world you will find out that English is the “Lingua Franca of the world” and we do still love to wind the French up about that one :-).
Thirdly there is absolutley no reason to exclude the UK from the EU SAFE initiative in fact it would be a seriously stupid idea to do so. Just bear in mind that except for France nearly all large European weapons projects are partnerships and we happen to be involved with a lot of them (we pay our way), we tend to cooperate well in partnerships (see MBDA, Typhoon etc etc etc).
Since Mr Putin invaded Ukraine and Mr Trump decided to reballance his books we Europeans have had to all suck it up, come together, have a hug and start to cooperate and despite the Brexit Divorce the family is all now feeling threatened so better and stronger together. Hence trade is getting easier, France and UK are talking, being semi detached member of the European Gang isn’t seen as bad thing and we don’t have to attend boring EU meetings anymore
There is absolutely no issue with us joining SAFE and participating in it, we will pay our way and bring a lot to the table just like we do with HORIZON, Capernicus and soon ERASMUS, we are still members of ESA and Airbus is doing just fine.
But probably the main reason is that all bar a couple of small EU countries we are all in NATO and the only country which has its entire Nuclear Weapons Arsenal tasked directly to NATO Tasking as a detterent (France and the US don’t).
If we do get in the one thing I’d suggest is that SAFE offers to fund a 5th SSBN plus the weapons for both France and UK, but only providing that France agrees to NATO tasking along side us.
First point:
I don’t wish for you to be in the South Pacific in the future. Your weather is already not that great where you are, but it could be much worse.
Second point:
Irrelevant. Most Europeans, at least in the West and Central regions, are so mixed that no one can claim to be “more European”.
Third point:
Of course, there is a reason, the same as in the US. Even if it could be somewhat slightly better with the UK, as we share some industries/groups, the point remains the same: EU money for the EU leads to the stimulation of European economies, which stimulates European industries, leading to better R&D and systems, better sovereignty, and better armies.
It doesn’t mean we can’t cooperate or work together, but European money should not be spent on third countries.
Yeah being part French, German, Scandi, etc doesn’t make you any more European than someone who is 100% French XD
What I mean is that “100% French” are so rare that is doesn’t mean much today.
Re point 3 European money stimulates European Defence we are all Europeans and will be contributing our funds towards that common aim. The EU is relevant as an enabler for increased European Defence cooperation and unlike yourself it sees the advantages of including other European Nations providing they pay their share. This initiative is happening despite what France wants, they are quite happy to sign up for cooperation deals directly with the U.K as a Nation state, but wish to exclude us from larger cooperative ventures. The problem is not that many European countries (including the EU) buy their weapons or manage long term defence cooperative deals with them.
What would happen in the U.K. just refused to pass on 5 Eyes intelligence to EU countries on the grounds of why should we, your not in 5 eyes ?
Not precise enough, EU money.
We have money to spend on cooperations without even talking about the EU funds, that’s the issue that people don’t seem to understand.
Did we need the SAFE for the FC/ASW? Aster (PAAMS)? No.
SAFE will not erase these bi/multilateral programs.
Also, the UK could benefit from SAFE funds with European groups/entities like Thales, MBDA, Airbus, and others I don’t have in mind right now. Just not UK-only entities (or worse non european groups even partly based in UK) and not without restrictions.
But again, only the EU funds. It’s not the only money / way.
The UK spends tens of billions on its nuclear deterrent which it has committed to protecting pretty much the whole of the EU via NATO. That’s a commitment we made because we believe in freedom and democracy. The French haven’t made that commitment. One of our main objectives is the peace and security of continental Europe which we are not part of. But it’s how we roll.
didn’t France offer the nuclear umbrella ?
And you are wrong.
There is ambiguity about the “what exactly” in the French doctrine, but the doctrine is clear, and just a few days ago, it became even clearer. The French doctrine stipulates that any strike on a French vital interest will be responded to with nuclear weapons. “Europe” (and not only Europe) is a vital interest of France, you just don’t know what the border is.
And just a few days ago, France and the UK made a declaration together: “From today, our adversaries will know that any extreme threat to this continent would prompt a response from our two nations. There is no greater demonstration of the importance of this relationship.”
You should check the news at least when it directly implicate your country.
I said “the doctrine is clear”, my bad, I wanted to say “the position”.
You’ve focused on completely the wrong part of my comment. You said that it should fund EU and nothing else. But the UK is helping to defend the EU. The EU isn’t helping defend the UK. There’s not thousands of EU troops based here. There’s no tanks, fighter jets etc here. Mainland UK isn’t under any threat but mainland Europe is and we provide billions and billions of our taxpayers money to help defend it. If I was a British squaddie based in Estonia or wherever and I read your comment I wouldn’t be impressed. Access to that fund would help us help the EU defend mainland Europe.
Yeah, 3/4 of your previous comment was the wrong part. We agree on this.
For this comment:
And?
EU funds being a priority for the EU is just normal. It’s not the only spending EU members will have in defense, it’s just a special fund for the EU.
The EU is also helping to defend the UK. Mainland UK isn’t under any threat? Really?
The point is that the EU fund is for the EU. We have plenty of spending that is not EU-focused where we can work together. Is it that hard to understand?
Sad or not, it’s a simple fact: the UK is not an EU country anymore.
Do we want to continue to cooperate with the UK? Of course.
Do we want to have EU funds going to third countries? Of course not.
Do the UK is now a third countries for the EU ? Yes, special partner at the door, yes, but still not the EU.
Does that mean it’s impossible for the UK to benefit from EU projects and/or money? Of course not.
Economy and defense are strictly related, it’s not childplay.
France has the same article V commitments as the UK….
Article V dont necessary apply to nuclear strike.
I mean the use of nuclear strike in support of the caller*
It absolutely does Hermes, if Nuclear weapons were used against NATO, you would absolutely be expected to respond in kind, as would the UK. If there’s even the slightest doubt that France would dither and not respond, then it entirely destroys the point of a nuclear deterrent!
IYou must see that the world situation as it currently stands, casts all this , you said, they said, Brexit blaming mentality aside and puts it in the past.
The new world security situation it bigger and far more important than any petty EU club members only nonsense.
It seems to me that you would rather keep the UK (and US) out as a defence competitors, to allow the majority of defence contracts from the fund, to go to France.
You have to get over this nationalist, protectionism, there are more important issues at play.
The Article 5 wording is vague. It states that an attack against one member “shall be considered an attack against them all.” What is quoted less often is that each member state only has an obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”
In other words, Article 5 does not commit member states to deploy military assets if an ally is attacked. It only commits them to some form of response.
(cepa.org)
And it has nothing to do with nationalism… I’m just stating a fact.
If you ask me, nuking or invading any european country, UK included, I would hope to see France going at the front.
I appreciate that. Wasn’t really the point I was trying to make. The UK provides tens of billions in assets to help defend the EU and it feels unappreciated at times. Mainland UK isn’t under threat but mainland Europe potentially is. Access to that fund would help us defend the EU not the other way round was the point I was trying to make.
It’s incorrect.
As close as we are, the UK spends tens of billions to defend itself, not the EU.
Our proximity, politically, culturally, but mainly geographically, means we protect each other. If London were attacked, it would make no sense for France not to respond, and the same goes for the UK.
We don’t have to kneel and say, “Oh, thank you, Great Britain, for your huge help”.
You are first and foremost working for your own interests. Maybe you don’t understand how a country’s interests work, but that’s the reality.
As affectionate as we may appear in Europe, everyone primarily works for their own camp. And if one country plays this game, it is definitely the UK.
We are not in a perfect world, it’s reality.
Good news from Pollard and vindication of the work by govt on bi- lateral agreements with FR and GY. Raises a lot of questions. Finland is in the EU. Would a joint Babcock – Patria factory in the UK qualify for SAFE funding? Would rebuilding Storm Shadows stocks or the UK buy of RCH Boxer built in GY qualify? Or the purchase of Tranche2 Typhoons from Spain? Does EURO- PULS become an attractive deep fires option for 1 Div?
All have significant shares with European industries and definitely should be eligible (with the condition that the share is significant enough).
Now, will they be? I’m not sure we know. I’m not even sure they know exactly what boundaries are or will be in place.
Yeh, it’s interesting. To create the RBSL joint-venture, BAE Systems sold a 55% share of BAE Systems Land UK to Rheinmetall AG. So I would argue that Boxer production in UK plants would qualify. I would think Spain would support the Typhoon sale. The govt will be doing some juggling before they announce the defence industry plan.
People wanted to leave the EU and have nothing to do with any of it.
This should not be happening.
Not my choice but hey we are where we are. The U.K. left to be much stronger and richer on its own.
But is it?
Hi MS where have you been hiding ? We left the EU not Europe we are still very intertwined with a lot of common projects and industry.
Post Brexit we are in a new world of transactional win-win deals. In doing deals with EU countries it is they who must abide by EU restrictions. Rejecting doing deals from which we ( and they) benefit on principle is what my grandmother would call cutting off your nose to spite your face.
People wanted to leave the EU, sure, but where did you hear Brits wanted nothing to do with Europe? 52% of those who voted wanted to leave the EU, primarily for better sovereign financial control and, a surprisingly long way down the list given subsequent press coverage, for better border control. The majority of people wanted and still want strong trade links with the EU, exactly the reason a majority voted to remain in the EEC back in the 70s. It’s true that a significant proportion have a problem with “ever closer union”. That’s very different from “want nothing to do with”.
I wanted us to remain in the EU while growing a greater global focus. I’m worried now we’ll get the opposite: despite us leaving the EU, we’ll shrink through small-minded leadership and lack of ambition. “NATO first” is a code for those who want us to shrink. “But not NATO only” is a code for those who don’t. The complete phrase encapsulates political battles to come.
At the end of the day, as always, the Brexit itself is not the issue.
It’s how it has been handled and precipitated, which also stressed the EU, who wanted to somewhat punish the UK or at least not help. In geopolitics, bad handling of major events takes decades to heal.
But maybe the UK will have to take a decision one day, you can’t always be somewhere in the middle hoping for benefits from everywhere.
And yet they want co-operation with Japan and South Korea.
Who are not in the EU……
Like us.
We’ve been over this, the reason there is co-operation with Japan and South Korea is because those nations have pre-existing defence agreements with the EU and the UK didn’t.
Exactly.
So not an all EU affair like many say.
Did those deals involve EU boats in their fishing grounds I wonder? Like the comprehensive defence agreements one keeps reading about as part of the great UK EU reset.
Some cages being rattled with this article, we even had the “B Word” again.
“Just when you thought it was forgotten”.
On a plus point, I just checked our “EDF” bill for this month, wow, Solar is the way to go.
I love “heated” posts like this! All the buzzwords being thrown about — Brexit, immigration, Trump!
UKDJ HQ, please don’t post any more articles today — this one has classic written all over it.
Best wishes,
Shitstirrer
Me too, I love all the serious stuff being discussed in the most serious way and people think they get taken seriously !
It’s no different to FB, X or any other chat site but still people take themselves so seriously.
Just to clarify that I am talking about the comments, not the site or article itself, thought I’m mention it before some plank gets all serious (again).
“Don’t take life so serious, you’ll never get out alive”.