The UK has confirmed it will not take part in the European Union’s €150 billion Security Action for Europe (SAFE) defence fund after failing to agree terms it considered good value, according to the government.
During Defence questions in the House of Commons, Liberal Democrat MP James MacCleary pressed Defence Secretary John Healey on whether the UK had declined access to the EU scheme, which is intended to support joint defence procurement and industrial cooperation among European partners. MacCleary argued that, “at a time of war,” the UK should be working more closely with European allies and asked whether ministers had rejected SAFE at a proposed cost of around £2 billion.
Healey confirmed that the UK had sought to negotiate access to the fund following the signing of a UK–EU security and defence partnership earlier this year, but said the terms were not acceptable. “We committed ourselves to negotiating with the European Union for access to the SAFE funding arrangements,” he told MPs. “From the start, we recognised that there would need to be a financial contribution from the UK.”
However, Healey said the government had set clear conditions for participation. “We also said from the start that SAFE needed to be good value for money for British taxpayers and British industry,” he said. “It did not meet those tests.”
As a result, Healey said the UK was “unable to reach a deal with the European Union” on SAFE, but stressed that the decision did not signal a retreat from defence cooperation with Europe. He said the government would “continue to back Great British defence industrial firms as they sell into Europe” and pursue bilateral arrangements that could deliver benefits beyond the scope of the SAFE programme.
I’m not sure why anyone would expect us to get favourable access terms to an EU defence fund. On the same token we should start nationalising THALES assets in the UK and probably Leonardo too.
These assets are too valuable to leave in EU hands.
Jim, does the UK need to nationalise Thales UK or Leonardo UK which would severely undermine UK’s “open for business” and “business-friendly” mantra and most likely scare off future entities in all categories, not just defence.
Thales UK and Leonardo UK come under the National Security and Investment (NSI) Act,which gives UK government extensive powers to intervene in the transfer of sensitive assets and technology amongst which include asset screening and extraterritorial reach.
The NSI allows the government to …” call in” and potentially block or unwind any transaction involving “qualifying assets,” which includes IP, designs, plans, source code, algorithms, and technical expertise. Importantly, this power applies even if the IP is being transferred to a foreign parent company. The government can intervene if the transfer is deemed to pose a risk to UK military or technological capabilities.
The UK Gov. already exercised these powers to block the transfer of sensitive IP to foreign entities, such as the 2022 block on a University of Manchester vision-sensing technology licence to a Chinese firm.
Also, a substantial amount of Thales UK and Leonardo UK work is classified as “UK Sovereign Capability.” “Freedom of Action” projects like the Elix-IR threat warning system (Thales) and Miysis countermeasure system (Leonardo) are developed in collaboration with the UK Ministry of Defence. Designed as “ITAR-free” UK sovereign capabilities to ensure Britain maintains “freedom of action” without needing foreign; including parent company, permission to deploy or modify them.
Standard MoD contracts contain Defence Conditions or DEFCONs which often stipulate that the UK government retains specific rights or “design authority” over technologies developed with public funding, preventing a foreign parent from unilaterally claiming the IP as their own or moving it abroad.
Access to sensitive designs is physically and digitally restricted through the List X system and UK Security Vetting aka UKSV. So, even if a company is owned by a French or Italian parent, only security-cleared British personnel / those with specific reciprocal clearances can access high-level UK sovereign IP.
This prevents a parent company from simply “downloading” UK-developed secret designs.
Such a pity HMG didn’t use those powers for the two most capable semiconductor design/manufacturers the UK used to have. Chinese firms were allowed to buy both. Both were emptied of IP and critical tooling before HMG got its act together. That IP now sits in China; the NSI was useless in those cases. If there were a crisis/war, both would have been able to make the chipsets the UK defence industry uses in everything from ships and warplanes to missiles. Now we are reliant on manufacturers in Belgium, the US and Taiwan.
Fsck me! Every one is so pumped full with acrimony and vitriol based on mindless ignorance.
– The NSI act was created in 2022.
Imagination Technologies was bought by Canyon Bridge, funded by China Reform in 2017. At that time, the UK only had the Enterprise Act 2002, which provided much narrower grounds for intervention.
When the Chinese owners attempted to take control of the board in April 2020, the NSI Act was still being drafted. This incident actually served as a primary “impetus” for Parliament to pass the NSI Act, with lawmakers arguing —– the existing laws were “deficient” and left critical digital infrastructure vulnerable. —– Shocking!
Because the acquisition predated the “lookback” period of November 2020, the NSI Act could not be used to retroactively block the 2017 sale. However, the government can use the Act to monitor and potentially block any new trigger events, such as further increases in shareholding or transfers of specific IP assets
In the Newport Wafer Fab case the NSI Act was used specifically to reverse the Chinese-backed takeover. Although Nexperia, again, Chinese-owned acquired NWF in July 2021, before the Act was fully operational the legislation included “retrospective” powers for deals closed on or after 12 November 2020. In November 2022, the UK government exercised these powers to issue a Final Order requiring Nexperia to sell at least 86% of its stake.
Newport Wafer Fab, now renamed Vishay Newport, still makes these chips. The physical manufacturing capability has not only been retained but is currently being significantly expanded under the new ownership.
Imagination Technologies is a fabless enity and remains a world-leading “Designer” of GPUs and AI accelerators, The Chineese company bought it in 2017, However, after one of its biggest partners, Apple Inc., announced it would stop using Imagination Technologies graphics chips in the iPhone etc. by 2019, it has now put it self up for sale again.
Present and all future UK goverments need do to keep on top of business’s that are vital, critical and crucial to UK interests, they have a decent Act with the NSI, but they must retain pressure on companies to step up on any foriegn investments.
Ex-RoyalMarine, I apologise to you and retract my – “Fsck me! Every one is so pumped full with acrimony and vitriol based on mindless ignorance.” comment, it was unnecessary and uncalled for – I’m Sorry.
The rest of my comment stands though, except the typo re the spelling of Chinese.
Nah, don’t retract that. The dipship needed the rebuttal because he’s spouting off lies to suit his narrative.
thanks, but I’ll run my own PR .
I think it’s the UK open for business mantra that’s the problem. We would not allow a Russian or Chinese company to own such assets no matter how many safeguards are in place. France is increasingly a competitor not an ally. Reciprocity also matters. Would a UK company be allowed to operate such sensitive assets in France? Clearly not so why should THALES be allowed to do so in the UK.
Frances main foreign policy goal appears to be to fuck up the UK as much as possible and it uses the EU as the main vehicle to do this.
That seems like a fatuous example to propose. France is not an adversery like Russia or China, France is an ally and in the realm of finance it is a competitor, just like the UK is a competitor to France and all its allies within the EU and beyond.
I can’t believe you posted that. It’s time to put your big boys pants on and see the world for what it really is and how it operates.
There are five UK Primes with deep industrial footprints in France, like; BAE Systems, MBDA, Rolls-Royce, Babcock International and QinetiQ.
And like Thales UK, they are subject to strict national security laws that ensure their respective host governments (UK or France) maintain control over sensitive assets.
France has a strict arms export control system grounded in the French Code of Defence, In France: UK firms like BAE Systems or Rolls-Royce must comply with French Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) screening and DGA (Direction Générale de l’Armement) oversight.
Beyond those primes , several other UK-linked defence and high-tech firms operate at a similar level of sensitivity in France – Serco, Darktrace, Synthesia & ElevenLabs, BT., Meggitt and Marshall Aerospace and more.
In September 2025 a move to try and protect France from UK defence / Tech business’s — as mentioned in my previous comments — France has proposed a 50% ceiling on the value of UK components in specific EU-funded defence projects to maintain European (read France) industrial sovereignty.
This is all standard practice in the complex nuances of bilateral cooperation and joint ventures. There always is political friction and rightly so in the jostle for sovereignty and every £, € and $ in play.
… If you were French you would be pissed off if your Gpv. didn’t do as the UK Gov. does and all the EU / Canada / US / Australia etc. do.
Not forgetting that the French government has historically held direct stakes in major defence companies, unlike the UK which opts for a “Golden Share”.
Typo – adversary.
Well explained, good read. Thank you.
Good. The EU has always treated the UK like dogs, so the only interactions we should have with them in defence matters should be on equal footing or not at all
I think £2bn would be a good deal that would more then pay for itself given the access out would give our Defence industry. It seems short sighted, especially when we’ve wasted 3 times that amount on Ajax. I think the Government was more scared about the optics of being seen to give £2bn to the EU and becoming cannon fodder for the Reform tub thumpers
This is a party that not only gave away the Chagos Islands but also paid for the privilege of doing so.
I don’t think this Labour scum give a damn about public opinion or optics on foreign issues at this point
Chagos not done yet! A UN report said the deal isn’t right because the Chagosians were not represented in the deal,also now they have set up a govt in exile and actually voted in an interim first minister 👍
It wasn’t £2 billion. The government haven’t confirmed the actual asked for some of money but it was widely reported in the press and confirmed by some government ministers that the EU had been pushed by France to ask for £6-14 billion from the UK just to have the right to bid for some of the programmes funding.
Sometimes the juice doesn’t justify the effort to squeeze.
Their opening gambit was €6bn and ours was £75m.
They the quickly cut their ask to around €2bn and we went to £100m and indicated that we wouldn’t go much above that.
By comparison, Canada was let in for €10m/yr so it sounds like our final offer was about right.
France was just trying to rinse us.
Ding Dong Mr Bell.
France initialy pushed for €6.75 billion and later lowered to €2 billion.
I don’t think the money was/is the issue once it was reduced to €2 billion, I think the UK wants a bigger, more equitable slice of the “cap” pie and improved IP protection.
The UK is trying to up the content cap, and without the formal participation agreement / special deal, UK-made components are capped at 35% of the value of any project funded by SAFE. The UK wants to raise this to 50% or even higher, thus allowing the UK aerospace and tech firms to lead major projects.
The aim was to dispense with the standard 35% Rule. Without the agreement, UK companies are capped as minority subcontractors, providing no more than 35% of the total component value of any project funded by SAFE.
The UK sought an “enhanced deal” that would treat British firms like EU/EEA members, removing the 35% limit and allowing them to act as prime contractors leading major European projects.
Plus, the EU through SAFE wants exclusive design authority and strategic autonomy for any high-end technology funded through the scheme. UK firms led SAFE-funded projects, they might be legally compelled to transfer their proprietary technical know-how or “design authority” to the EU to meet these autonomy standards.
The UK Gov. viewed these terms as a threat to its national “freedom of action,” as it would limit The UK’s ability to export or modify its own technology without EU oversight.
“The agreement would require that the prime contractor must be able to adapt or evolve the design without “third-country restrictions”. The UK sought a technical workaround that would protect British intellectual property while satisfying EU “autonomy” rules.”
The EU also insists that any technical agreement must ensure “reciprocal access” to the UK’s own defence market for EU firms, mirroring the level of access granted to UK firms within SAFE.
All in all, the exclusion of the UK, one of Europe’s largest defence spenders is seen as a “lose-lose” for continental security, the EU loses access to world class / world leading UK expertise in AI, cyber defence, and aerospace, possibly leading to duplicated efforts and fragmenting already fragile supply chains, but, also fragmenting the Euro defence market at a time when rapid re-armament against Russia is seen as a priority.
I think France had an issue with use joining. History repeating itself.
France always wants to protect its defence industries and technology base to the exclusion of all else.
That should never be a suprise.
Though, we know that we compete with UK on plateform, but for missiles or nuclear matters, we strongly cooperate with UK. The CAMM is considered to boost air defense on our frigates. On that one we don’t think about codevelopment, just plain purchase. They are considered as a replacement of Aster 15, because cold launch and quad pack are very interesting. Plans are set for 2026 with UK. So… the picture is always a bit complex. The stuff done by UK interests is. The program with UK/USA where UK is a minor partner are not so interesting for they do not match French political goals. Though, I don’t think France was keen to block UK on this initiative. If anyone would, check who is paying the most for this fund. Germany are more willing to work with USA to build factories, for trade reasons. They may not look for UK to play the exact same role on funds that are after all mostly their money.
Interesting comment on CAMM. I read on Naval News recently that the Naval Group are developing a VLS for CAMM for their FDI frigate proposal to Sweden. Pity the UK manufacturers of the six CAMM silo vls haven’t evolved their own design further, to get more CAMM in a given footprint. They might be missing out on something here as an alternative to ExLS.
Really! I’m shocked 🙂
This is a bit of a own goal for the EU and UK to Russia’s advantage. It looks like you cannot depend on the US, so the EU and UK will stand or fall together.
Both the EU and UK need to think again!
I agree. It’s interesting that Canada got terms that we were not offered it seems. My take on that is that Canada would of course be very much a buyer of whatever comes out of that European cooperation whereas the UK is seen as a competitor within it and thus needs to be disadvantaged from the perspective of France certainly which loves to be the main driver. Depressingly familiar and exactly the sort of weakness and disunity that Russia loves to see and exploit. Europe is its own worst enemy.
One of many reasons why we voted to leave!
But if the UK was still part of the EU, there would have been automatic inclusion in the fund.
Closer integration with Europe makes sense to me. As I saw it Brexit was the worst foreign policy decision since the Suez campaign!
I am personally happy to be friends and collaborate where it is in both our interests with Europe but not to be part of the EU, which like us is in a ongoing slide to irrelevance on the world stage as our share of global GDP gets ever smaller along with our military.
An over the top statement you may well say and then highlight the continent has two nuclear armed P5 states but how come it is the US who are driving the Ukraine war negotiations whilst we stand by and watch from the sidelines.
The worst Foreign policy disaster since Suez has been the U.K.s and EU’s unchallenged belief in soft power for the last two decades leading to a continent unable to deter war and fully support Ukraine because they have in effect disarmed allowing the US to do what the hell they like.
Brexit is a sideshow except for die hard Remainers and Brexiteers.
There is much truth in what you say. Since the days of the Cold War we have been happy to accept protection from the US who rather liked being seen as protector of western values and ethos. That being said funds that could have been spent on defence went into propping up the NHS and Social Security payments leaving us in the state we are currently in. However until the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 I do not think anyone thought a serious shooting war in Europe likely so why spend money on kit which in all probability might not be needed? If you want to point a finger NATO’s expansion eastwards was a red flag to Russia and talk of NATO membership for Ukraine the tipping point following the Maidan revolution. I still do not think Russia wants a war with the west however but continued support for Ukraine is a must.
Don’t accept the FSB talking point of expansion that Mikael Gorbachev already disavowed. He was there so does know. It was only East Germany that agreed to not militarise following unification.
Sovereign democratic nations decide to apply for NATO membership and their motivation includes aggressive nearby dictators invading peaceful nations.
European NATO would be lucky to get the only battle tested military in Europe to agree to join. It’s more likely an arms length agreement with individual supporter countries to get access to technology and experience to make their forces relevant to modern combat.
The Peace Dividend delusion is over and we are not safe.
Time to pay the insurance premium for freedom or learn ruzzian [CDS]
The Peace Dividend delusion has allowed politicians to safeguard their electoral prospects by shifting Defence spending to social provision and even war in Europe hasn’t enabled them to pivot back to Defence.
We bailed out the bankers in 2008 and now its their turn to invest in Defence since their business depends on peace and stability. Lower risk means lower cost for Defence Investment Bonds than standard Gilts.
Thus the 3.5% GDP Defence spending target for 2030, and 2.75% GDP for 2026 are affordable without tax increases. A long term investment plan for national security.
A requirement for a banking licence.
Over to Finance Ministers to make it happen. The UK Chancellor hasn’t the courage and vision to confront the banks so only provided 2.6% GDP in her recent budget. Not good enough.
Exactly Daniele. Many are myopic about France’s actions with respect to the UK and our relationship with European nations/EU members, relations that the French have torpedoed during and after WWII with De Gaulle, in the EU, Brexit, and beyond. France is doing everything it can to keep the UK out of EU defence projects. The French-German-Spanish 6th-gen fighter has teetered from one crisis to the next over the relationship and work-sharing between Germany, Spain, and France. The French tucked the UK up so many times when we were in the EU. Doing behind-the-scenes deals, blocking the UK at almost every juncture, and even successfully preventing a British Commission President. They are pretty and petulant as we see on the beaches in the morning. The French don’t lift a finger to prevent boats from leaving their shores. This French even attempted to have English struck out as the lingua franca within the EU.
Simple reason is the UK defence industry is far bigger than Canada and far closer. If we had of joined we would have for potentially a lot more value out of it than Canada.
However I can’t blame the gov, it would have been tax payers subsidising profitable defence companies to build stuff for the EU nations.
Is it really so… it is not mostly French money. You should look to who pays for this fund. And who wants to play middle man with USA as well.
The thing is with stuff like this while the US is at the moment unreliable, Congress as already started retaining him in and with in a year now he might be a complete lame duck. And MAGA might receive such a loss that it never recovers from. At the same time France and Germany are one election away from having very right wing government, and become very unreliable. And we ourselves might have one and be the unreliable one.
Not really. The EU’s defence fund is there specifically to build up EU MIC capabilities. Flag shaggers might froth at the mouth over the EU protecting it’s industrial base (usually while ignoring the US and UK doing the same things). If the UK wants access to it, as an outside power, it really shouldn’t surprise anyone that the EU would want concessions, as it means that money earmarked for EU infrastructure would be spent in the UK.
Also the other side of coin is the UK has tech that the rest of the EU don’t.
It is worth bearing in mind what the UK has achieved fast with a Gen6 plane and why.
What is a flag shagger?
I’m wondering if this is a breach of the recently signed EU-UK defence security pact?
Probably is!
SAFE is little more than an attempt by the EU to show it is relevant to defence matters. We lose nothing by not participating.
Is this related to the controversy about the EU asking the UK to pay into its budget for access to the programme? Seems like the UK dodged a bullet.
French trying to protect their arms industry demanded an extortionate joining fee from the U.K., totally out of proportion with what Canada is to pay to join the scheme. Apparently other EU countries annoyed at French self-centredness during such perilous times.
U.K. should set up its own rival loan scheme for nations wanting to buy U.K. weaponry. Ad-hoc financial schemes are common, but something like this would send a message too.
Yup it’s so transparent, France wants to keep a closed shop other than drawing an Anglophile nation into the club which will thus become a considerable buyer of its, stuff first European second (especially those it has a hand in) and non Uk weaponry generally with all the political and economic influence that comes with it. I hope the Govt is countering this in some way, I have been concerned that in the overt striving to stay in Trump’s good books we are neglected Canada in particular which if so would be deeply short sighted be it in a World where MAGA like zealots follow Trump or whether the US goes back to a more liberal outlooking Administration or as seems very possible an alternating scenario of intensifying self hate that continues to make them an unreliable ally.
Only serious Constitutional reform to prevent #47 foreign interference happening again will enable the eventual alliance rebuilding in US national security interest.
America Alone is weaker and poorer until then.
For once i applaud the Government for this decision. If its poor value for the UK then leave it alone. Maybe the EU will come back to the table with a better offer…..I can’t imagine that they don’t want us involved.
I believe this is a simple matter of the EU asking for a financial contribution from us that would in all probability exceed the value of any funding we would secure from the SAFE fund- just as the EU always insisted that we make a substantial net financial contribution to the organisation when we were members (effectively subsidising the majority of other members which were net recipients). Why anyone would agree to such terms is beyond me.
Intentionally priced out. There was to be no danger that the UK could become a NET beneficiary of the scheme but had to slip back into its old, pre Brexit role of being a NET EU contributor.
I believe the UK Government was looking to pay no more than £87 Million, considerably less than the £2 Billion that the EU wanted. On the other hand, that would still dwarf the fee that Canada has agreed for accession into the SAFE fund, some £15 Million or there abouts. Of course, I’m sure the calculation is that Canada, with a much smaller defence industry, will likely pay for itself by buying more EU equipment than it ultimately sells. If this encourages them to go for the German submarines over the Korean ones, then the strategy will have paid for itself many times over.
I still think this, from an EU perspective, is a tad short sighted given the UK’s more prominent role in European defence. The correct choice from the point of view of UK Plc.
See my reply above. The £2 billion isn’t confirmed many sources including a government minister on BBC question time report the EU asked for a figure between £6 and £14 billion.
OK, thanks for the information. I had thought the lower value was confirmed following negotiations. If that’s the case, there’s no question about it being the correct decision.
Just remember France, Germany, Netherland are net contributor on this fund. Other countries are mostly net beneficiaries. Take this once in consideration before going full fledge on the story « this is because of the French ». It is an easy story but not the full picture. France is deeply in debts. Germany is paying the lion’s share. France is increasing EU spending by 20 Bn€. So a lot of money in sinking in. What was asked to UK is to bring their own money minus all cohesion funds to play this game. I think it was fair. Though, let’s talk the truth. UK believe it is better to invest a Little in US venture and receive more money being a junior partner. I think it comes down to sovereignty at some point. This discussion was about that. I don’t think the choice made by UK is the best, but this is a UK decision. Keep in mind that the coveted position of being the entry point of US weapons systems is now looked upon by Germany, with serious elements to the table.
France will do what it always down: rely on it’s own engineers to make weapons system protecting the continent. Another interesting dynamic is starting between Ukraine and Poland in drones. It is the first move out of US orbit and a good one.
Got to love the EU. All friends and close allies until politics and self interest rears it’s head.
I recall during the tough Brexit negotiations that the UK made it clear that, despite fraught relations, defence was an entirely unconnected affair. Defence was defence and that’s all there was to it. Apparently that is not the case. The EU seeks to centralise some aspects of defence, though I’m sure the ‘blood, sweat and tears’ element will happily remain an international effort.
Heaven forbid, a power looks after it’s own interests. Imagine after that fascist Farage stood up and called the EU parliament thugs and criminals that they don’t want much to do with our racist asses?
Unfortunately in the near future I think it is possible that Farage might be politically to the left of some EU politicians. Personally I don’t think Farage is a Fascist because he doesn’t tick all the boxes but some of his comments certainly push the boundaries.
I am afraid if we get Farage as PM then our political elite need to look back at their own actions and inactions over the last quarter of a century because both the left and right have disenfranchised and lost so many people it is scary.
Farage would get absolutely nowhere if our mainstream politicians had listened and acted truthfully on peoples concerns on the impact of globalisation, migration, protecting big businesses self interest and climate amongst a few I can think of.
To question mainstream thinking and to be labelled far right or hard left, climate denier, anti business or racist amongst the many lazy labels used is just not helpful and has allowed others to exploit that narrative.
In summary Farage is a symptom and not the cause of our current predicament when it comes to politics in the U.K. but we are definitely not alone.
Ignore Dern. He’s a left wing tool that is in that group of people that calls anyone vaguely right of centre a fascist. A complete child
sjb1968, sorry, no one gets accused of being hard left, or anti-business, and to a far lesser extent, a climate denier. However, one only has to question the effect that immigration (16.8% of people in England & Wales were born overseas***) and non-assimilation into British culture and life, for you to be called ‘far right,’ a ‘Fascist,’ ’ racist,’ and many other names. On top of that, you will be cancelled and could even lose your job.
Yet, we are all affected when it comes to:
Housing (the increase in the non-UK born population in England is expected to have led to a 21% increase in house prices, all else being equal). England is now the fifth most densely populated country in the world – not including small islands and city states – right up there with Taiwan, South Korea, Rwanda, and Bangladesh at number one*). Hotels for migrants currently cost £8bn a year. The government has been moving migrants out of hotel accomodation and into HMO’s and privately rented homes. This makes the housing shortage for the British population even more acute.***
The NHS: The cost of the entire migrant population in the UK was just under £19 billion in 2014/15 and is likely to have doubled since then or more. However, HMG hasn’t published figures since. The sum spent on this population is over 63% higher than that on people born in the UK, due to long-term illness and disease pre-existing their entry into the UK.* Victorian diseases have returned to areas of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Coventry and Leeds
School places: Children are being turned down for a school place thats less than 100 yards from their front door, making them travel 6-7 miles for an alternative because children of migrants are given priority to concentrate groups with the same background as each other together in many areas. Children not born to migrants are losing out as resources are switched to migrants and children of migrants who have either not had any schooling or are at a poor level, as well as not speaking English.*
Congestion: on roads it drives a population crush which leads to increasing gridlock and the loss of green space*).
Crime: The sex offences concentrated on one particular group and terrorism within our borders – of convictions over the past 20 years, 45 foreign nationals who served prison sentences for terror offences committed in the UK that killed more than one person and were allowed to remain in the UK after completing their jail terms*, leaves a clear and present danger to the population. HMG claims not to know the true numbers of crimes committed by migrants and first-generation migrants. But if we look at Spain, which does keep such records, would it not be sensible if the UK percentages were along the same lines? For the first time in the history of Spain, the prison population of young people born abroad exceeds that of young Spaniards in prison, at a ratio of 60 to 40. If we include those born in Spain with Spanish nationality but to foreign parents, that ratio skyrockets to over 70/30. And if we distinguish by categories of crimes, we will find that most convictions for rape and sexual assault fall on foreigners, following an exponential increase in this type of crime in recent years**.
* Migration Observatory
** Rafael L. Bardají, Spanish Government figures
*** Daily Telegraph 02/08/25
Interesting details. Agree, it is completely unsustainable but hey, we’re all racists and loons.
I’ll see you all at the ballot box.
Unfortunately when you live in a country where everyone is labelled because of the cancer of identity politics I am afraid we are already living in some kind of Orwellian nightmare.
Today I see all boys are being labelled ‘misogynists’ and need to be educated but no mention of improving the life chances of largely white working class boys so they are better educated and integrated into society or challenging the cultural problems that exist within certain ethnic communities. Gimmicks and superficial claptrap are the norm these days.
To express a reasoned opinion that suggests we need to slow our transition away from fossil fuels is almost immediately lost in a frenzy of attacks that is perpetuated by the msm. When it is pointed out that Norway, an advanced and well educated country, still exploits its North Sea reserves you will find this is given very little air time because where once reasoned logic was used to make decisions we have emotion and an inability to understand another point of view.
I do actually think much of what you have said is now more understood and accepted but to ask our politicians to do anything about it and you will find yourself coming up against those in the Treasury (who actually run the country) that just see more people as a way of massaging up our GDPs figures. The narrowness of their outlook is informed by there limited life experience and knowledge, which means they overlook everything else. Those arguing for open borders are the useful idiots that provide the cover for all this and they will be ably backed up by the media with show personal life stories that demonstrate how a single person or family has contributed so much to the country since their arrival but fail to mention how for example the numbers coming in can be reconciled with our housing crisis.
Farage for all his failings has been the one pretty consistent voice highlighting the direction of travel of the last 20 years and the rest because of their largely globalist and liberal outlook cannot seem to see or do anything about the forthcoming car crash.
God Bless the Royal Marines.
Sir Ian McKellen (your avitar) identifies with left-wing politics, primary public activism has been for LGBTQ+ rights. He publicly came out as gay in 1988 to protest the UK’s Section 28 law, which prohibited local authorities from “promoting” homosexuality. He is a co-founder of the UK’s leading LGBTQ+ lobbying group, Stonewall.
Sir Ian McKellen identifies with left-wing politics Party Endorsements, while he generally restricts his campaigning to specific issues, he has publicly endorsed the UK’s Labour Party and specific Labour candidates due to their commitments to LGBTQ+ rights and other issues like education and homelessness.
He and his friend, actor Sir Patrick Stewart, have self-proclaimed themselves as socialists.
McKellen ialso advocated for the UK to remain in the European Union, arguing that EU legislation helped curb prejudice.
… so there’s that.
Hi M.
I know. Who cares, he’s still utterly brilliant regardless of his politics.
I respect others views, I hope people respect mine, and that means not being called far right, racist, or whatever other crap is thrown at one when one’s concerned about the scale of immigration that I am, and even my father, who was an immigrant himself, was.
I’m also a Tolkien fan, so Gandalf, yes, there’s that.
All very well for us to criticise the EU, some of which is justified, but what are we doing to defend ourselves? Answer…nothing.
There’s an article in today’s Daily Telegraph, by Ambrose Evens-Pritchard, which argues that many in Taiwan are so fed-up with Trump’s unreliability and demands for cash that some politicians are arguing that surrendering to Xi would be the best option.
Gulp.
They have looked at the new US defence strategy.. to be honest almost as bad for the pacific democratic nations as it is for European nations, although not quite as at lest for the pacific nations it has not said it will interfere with them ( apart from maybe Australia and newzealand). But it’s made it clear as mud china and Russia can do what the hell they want anywhere they want as long it’s it’s not interfering with the US western hemisphere.
The U.S. has basically told the western pacific powers they need to look to their own defence, unless it’s in the U.S. very specific interest to support them.
US Security Strategy
Europe sees that This US is unreliable. Germany and UK won’t tolerate that. France will say CDG Told you so.
Europe must take the initiative in European NATO command to send the American staff home and lead for the interests of all European people. Maga will claim they saved taxpayers money ..
We already started with Joint Expeditionary Force and Enhanced Forward Presence.
🇸🇪🇳🇴🇩🇰🇫🇮🇪🇪🇱🇻🇱🇹🇳🇱🇬🇧🇩🇪
There can be no influence for a country that will not uphold Article 5, especially no membership veto for USA or the RF terrorist state.
They said they won’t support Article 5, so European NATO countries will take that duty and decide what security guarantees will be given to Ukraine. The best security guarantees are Ukrainian weapons made by Ukraine and ITAR free, so only Ukraine decides how they use them.
Deutchland, Czechia, and Great Britain have been investing and collaborating with Ukraine to design, build, test, and improve long range precision fires. A refinery a day keeps the orcZ away.
Flamingo go go 🦩🔥🦩🔥🦩
Increased defence spending to 5% GDP means European NATO taxpayers expect their tax to be spent on European jobs, profits, and taxes, not US MIC. There’s no reason to pay the US arms premium for interoperability when USA has said they will not uphold Article 5. So it’s on #47 that red states, where US arms are built, that they lose jobs, profits, and taxes. Lower export volumes increase the unit price to US taxpayers.
Only serious Constitutional reform to prevent #47 foreign interference happening again will enable the eventual alliance rebuilding in US national security interest.
America Alone is weaker and poorer until then.
Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦
Heroyam Slava 💙💛
#StrongerTogether
#WeAreNATO
#vpdfo #FDJT
The UK really needs to wake up and smell the coffee, the world has shifted on many ways. The US essentially telling the rest of the do what the hell you want as long as it’s not in the western hemisphere ( AKA the American continent and areas of direct US interest) and that the US will treat and trade with it regardless well as telling the world it is essentially in a state of political warfare with the EU and does not really recognise it.
For the UK this means we have to start to understand a few things.
The post war international order has gone, it’s been smashed to hell and is not coming back..the nation that created it has destroyed it and it cannot be rebuilt,just replaced.
The world is now simply at a point where the great powers will simply do as their power allows, so
1) the U.S. and EU are going to end up in at best a neutral relationship and at worse an antagonist relationship, this is now essentially inevitable and the speed at which it occurs is essentially the life expectancy of NATO.
2) NATO is done, it has a terminal disease even with a major stressor it’s going to die, with a major stressor it may collapse in front of us.
3) The US will work with anyone to secure its power.. its even made it clear it will work with Russia and china as long as they don’t push into the U.S. area of influence.. it will as drop any minor power that becomes inconvenient.
4) The EU sees the UK as an external power and possibly a competitor
5) the U.S. sees the UK as an external power that it has a bit of wish to keep control over for internal political reasons and to help secure the Atlantic…
6) Russia sees the UK as a direct competitor and a serious geostrategic threat to it
Now we can all wander around going NATO is our greatest strength and the EU and US are our close allies and friends and the US and EU will stay close because of ties.. but that was yesterday, it’s not shaping up for tomorrow.. we need to get real we are an independent medium sized world power sandwiched between to monoliths ( the EU and US) that are more and more falling out politically and we have another medium sized world power very close that sees us as its number one enemy. That power is getting close ties to another great power ( china ) that we seem to insist on pissing off on behalf of a world order that no longer exists. At the same time we have significant geostrategic capital in an area of that world that no one is going to support us in ( the south Atlantic and Antarctic) and everyone is likely to try and steel in the new world..
The UK really needs to decide what it’s future geostrategic goals are..
1) is it going to be a hard as nails medium sized world power with an bit of a “don’t piss with me” demeanour and I will not hurt you ( the small guy down that pub that will put a glass in anyone’s face) while going its own way and just focusing on its own immediate geostrategic interests and nothing else.
2) is it going to be an extension of the new U.S and support the U.S. goals..using the US as a shield.
3) is it going to move back towards the EU supporting EU goals using the EU as a shield
4) pretend the world is as it was and wait for someone to do something nasty to us and find out nobody has our back and we don’t have the power to strike back.
It needs to pick its future.. it can pick anyone as long as its willing to take the consequences.
The UK is doing quite well with selling defence equipment to other European nations. The corporation is there, it’s just a certain player in Europe doesn’t like it. They threw the dummy out when Poland picked Saab. They will likely do it again if Sweden picks Babcock for upcoming Frigate.
Hi Chris it’s not so much selling stuff it our future geostrategic position in say the next decade.. are we a potential victim, a part of the EU block, part of the US block or do we have a big enough stick to keep our own course… my personal view is we become that power with a big stick that talks quietly and steers our own course.. the only truely bad option is thinking the present world order will be around to keep us safe.
Jonathon I think you have misread the state of play and misinterpreted the strategy … and gone fscking hysterical!
Keep calm, breathe in slowly … exhale slowly.
Not really to be honest.. the strategy is just the last in long line.. looking at the U.S. is very very difficult at present,
So, is our exclusion from the SAFE fund the driver for the govt discussing the formalisation of an offset policy for UK defence industry?
Sadly though, successive uk government’s seem hell bent in reducing our armed forces to nothing more than a local defence force. All 3 are virtually on their knees. I can’t help but feel we’re cutting off our nose to spite our face here.
Read the Strategic Defence Review to understand that it’s insightful and sets out a solution to the traditional cuts through Transformation to All-Of-Government to overcome Foreign Office, Treasury and MoD barriers.
Further Transformation to All-Of-Nation meaning recognition that Freedom is Not free and the whole nation must understand that they depend upon their Defence spending to remain free. The current war in Europe is a perfect opportunity to show that the Peace Dividend delusion is over.
Transformation is not easy but is needed to solve the problems that SDRs failed to deal with previously. It aligns with the current government appetite for change.
All of Nation must include the political class. It also requires a communication campaign that MOD is unwilling to run. It barely stumps up for military recruitment adverts and it’s not going to calling in marketing experts and TikTok influencers to persuade the man on the Clapham omnibus that hollowing out the military is a bad thing. One issue is that politicians are lying and the civil service simply can’t run a campaign pointing that out.
The SDR might recognise the need for an All of Nation effort, but there’s no obvious way to implement it.
Transformation is by definition not business as usual so it’s not surprising that the organisation doesn’t have all the skills and experience needed. That’s why external suppliers with those skills and experience are required temporarily to deliver the change. Some of that is enabling the civil service to educate and inform politicians and their constituents. Staying factual, aligned to the audience, not party, is professional. I’d expect that the civil service is already familiar with the difference between good intentions and what can be delivered in reality. So what politicians want to do, and what’s realistic.
That education and information is required to counter the foreign interference misinformation that Defence spending is wasted taxes. So cyber as well as civil service must be mobilised in the national security interest. Hybrid war is in all domains including the intent to erode political will of voters, and their elected representatives.
Influence is a subtle, long-term thing that has to be more compelling than Rememberance Sunday and Trooping of the Colour, valuable though those are. Forces News is good but not all-of-nation, yet. So there’s much more to be done to reach people with no interest in military life, and little sense of national belonging. Fighting misinformation with verified facts is a good start, though building engagement is more difficult.
Not making the effort to change would be inexcusable in a national security context.
The SAFE fund offers loans, NOT grants. SAFE provides loans to member states, which must be repaid by the beneficiary countries under favourable conditions. The European Commission raised the necessary €150 billion by issuing long-term EU-Bonds and short-term EU-Bills to investors, I know that the UK was a major market for EU bonds. According to investor distribution statistics from the European Commission for the first half of 2023, the UK accounted for 21.0% of the investors by country/region, making it the single largest market for these securities at that time.
So … got a finger in pie.
This was a mistake to begin with. For starters, it would have destroyed the Tempest project. France would have ensured that, and anyone who doesn’t believe it should just look at how they are behaving toward Germany over FCAS.
We would have been pushed into paying more and more into the fund to support foreign manufacturing at the loss of our own, possibly seeing the end of aircraft production in the UK.
We would also likely have been pushed into sharing common platforms that are suitable for France, but not the UK wider needs and commitments. And of course who gets the final say on where equipment is used or sold? We already have issues selling Typhoon if one of the other partners objects, hence why Rafael has taken so many sales from it.
The EU is bureaucracy in action, so I wouldn’t trust it to make any UOR decisions before it was too late.
On the plus side, if the fishing rights were for access, then surely that agreement is now null and void….
Back in the 1960’s at least the UK powers looked like the wanted to protect us hard working citizens? Why on earth can’t Israel at least do us a favour & sell us advanced missile defense shields? Since we defended them in so many harsh situations? I get the impression that the dark powers want the UK to be hurt in some way ? Here we are using T45 that couldn’t really cover a city & sky sabre ? It’s pathetic & if Russia detected our Only at sea deterrent ..then it’s lights out folks …go watch treads movie .& It’s only a glimpse of what our small nation will endure ..why can’t USA & Israel help us out with at least a working anti ballistic missile shield?
US Security Strategy
Europe sees that This US is unreliable. Germany and UK won’t tolerate that. France will say CDG Told you so.
Europe must take the initiative in European NATO command to send the American staff home and lead for the interests of all European people. Maga will claim they saved taxpayers money ..
We already started with Joint Expeditionary Force and Enhanced Forward Presence.
🇸🇪🇳🇴🇩🇰🇫🇮🇪🇪🇱🇻🇱🇹🇳🇱🇬🇧🇩🇪
There can be no influence for a country that will not uphold Article 5, especially no membership veto for USA or the terrorist state.
They said they won’t support Article 5, so European NATO countries will take that duty and decide what security guarantees will be given to Ukraine. The best security guarantees are Ukrainian weapons made by Ukraine and ITAR free, so only Ukraine decides how they use them.
Deutchland, Czechia, and Great Britain have been investing and collaborating with Ukraine to design, build, test, and improve long range precision fires. A refinery a day keeps the orcZ away. Flamingo go go 🦩🔥🦩🔥🦩
Increased defence spending to 5% GDP means European NATO taxpayers expect their tax to be spent on European jobs, profits, and taxes, not US MIC. There’s no reason to pay the US arms premium for interoperability when USA has said they will not uphold Article 5. So it’s on #47 that red states, where US arms are built, that they lose jobs, profits, and taxes. Lower export volumes increase the unit price to US taxpayers.
Only serious Constitutional reform to prevent #47 foreign interference happening again will enable the eventual alliance rebuilding in the US national security interest.
America Alone is weaker and poorer until then. Former Allies must make their own arrangements to safeguard their freedom.
Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦
Heroyam Slava 💙💛
#StrongerTogether
#WeAreNATO
#vpdfo #FDJT