The Ministry of Defence says the government is assessing whether participation in the EU’s new defence industrial scheme would deliver benefits for the UK, after Conservative MP David Reed asked about the economic impact of missing out on the first tranche of Security Action for Europe (SAFE) projects.
Defence minister Luke Pollard said the UK’s exclusion stemmed from the post-Brexit deal struck by the previous government, which “did not include UK participation in Security Action For Europe”.
He argued that the current government’s diplomatic reset with Brussels has reopened the door, adding that the UK is now “able to explore participation”.
Pollard stressed that cooperation talks form part of a wider effort to deepen the UK’s security relationship with the EU. He said London is working to implement commitments from the recent UK-EU summit and to build on the new Security and Defence Partnership. That includes discussion of a bilateral participation agreement covering SAFE projects.
He said the MoD is working with the Treasury, the Department for Business and Trade and the Cabinet Office, as well as industry and European partners, to shape the UK’s position. The goal, he said, is to strengthen Europe’s defence industrial capacity and sustain equipment flows to Ukraine.
Pollard declined to comment on the detail of negotiations and reiterated that the government will only sign up if any deal “provided value to the UK and UK industry”.
So Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands all want the UK to have access. This was actually signed and part of the recently announced security and intelligence sharing deal with the Federalised superstate that is the EU.
France however wish to levy a £6.5-8 billion charge for the UKs right to bid for, not win, EU contracts from the £150 billion EU rearmament funding programme.
Doesn’t seem like a good use of tax payers money and likely totally unpalletabile too UK electorate at a time when we are about to be given a massive tax rise instead of cutting the welfare bill.
Ah the EU. They keep giving good arguments for the UK to leave them behind and get closer to the US and the commonwealth
Yep 44% of the EU population live in a country with more than 100% debt to gdp. France is one of them. They have no money so they concoct this EU cartel nonsense to charge us. They will soon squeal if we refuse to help them. All countries in NATO should be free to bid for contracts. The EU is basically undermining that unity.
The UK is also at the 100%+ bracket, and remind me how easy it is for European companies to bid for US defence contracts against US companies?
UK debt to gdp as of June 2025 was 96.3%. Unlike say France we have the political will to reduce it as well. I haven’t mentioned the United States nor defended their trade policy. However the american arm of BaE and RR seem to do ok. The UK is a european country and we have not imposed cartel like bloc rules on EU companies. If those countries want our support in time of war they should not be making it more expensive for us to do that. It all just plays into the hands of our adversaries.
Uk can totally access national defence budget and sell weapons. What uk is doing with SAFE is demanding to be treatef Like a member state while it’s not and benefit from lower EU borrowing rates. Sorry but no free riders needed.
Ah the uk: 47 years pushing back any eu wide defence project and begging being treated Like a member state once out of eu.
You’re conflating two separate issues.
The UK isn’t asking to be “treated like a member state”—we’re asking that NATO cooperation isn’t undermined by EU-only procurement structures that deliberately exclude non-EU allies. That’s a political choice by the EU, not some natural law of economics.
And no, the UK isn’t trying to benefit from EU borrowing rates; we’re not part of SAFE and haven’t asked to be. The point is simply that if the EU wants European defence to be more efficient and interoperable, blocking UK firms makes that harder, not easier. As for being a free rider. A country that’s one of NATO’s top spenders, one of Ukraine’s main supporters, and a major European defence innovator isn’t a free rider. It’s odd to call it that while simultaneously relying on UK capabilities in intelligence, nuclear deterrence, and high-end defence industries. As for the daft 47 year bit.
The UK opposed EU duplication of NATO structures—not European defence cooperation in general. That’s a pretty important distinction. Even today, the UK cooperates closely with France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, and others on defence projects outside the EU framework. So hardly true either.
The article is about the SAFE program, uk is litteraly negociating to access SAFE on an equal foot with member states, hence the 6 to 8 billions fee. Hoping to access an eu fund funded by eu bonds without payent a fee is free riding. Again, uk can toatally discuss on bilateral with member states.
Over the last 2 decades of membership:
-threaten to leave EDA in 2010, blocking increase of eda funding
-opposition to EU rapid reaction force
-opposition to mpcc
-opposition to eu defence procurement initiatives (aka safe).
-Cameron opposing drone project in 2013
I wish those tools had been in place before as they happen to be rather useful. The fear of eu undermining nato has always been irrational to the point many did not imagine it would be the US that would undermine nato.
the UK is already totally subservient to the US, and yet they don’t want you..you are desperately looking to be a poodle for someone instead of actually you know, being independent, strong and have alliances !
Yeah because the EU treats the UK so well…..don’t even talk to me brainlet
Yes because the EU is the one who turned its back on its allies and left right?
Not quite. Right now the UK can bid, but they can only get 35% of the contract, as for most countries outside the EU. But France want £5b and in return they’ll up the limit to 50%.
Its far worse than that Mr Bell.
Think of SAFE as 3-layer cake. UK, USA & other 3rd party countries have open-access up to 35% threshold cost of SAFE funded projects (150 billion total). Enhanced access requires an entry-fee but provides for additional 15% access up to 50% cost threshold (22.5 billion). 50% of SAFE (75 billion) remains locked to EU countries. Not accessible to third parties, period.
EU demanded UK contribute 6.5 billion euro to allow UK enhanced-access to bid contracts within 22.5 billion euro pot. There is no guarantee of winning any contracts – however it’s likely that 15-20% of enhanced-access section may go to UK suppliers according to an EU spokesperson; that’s potentially 2 billion euros. GVA is hard to estimate but FT suggests it could be worth up to £150-300 million to UK economy over period of 5+ years. Compare that figure with upfront entry fee of 6.5 billion euro – regardless that EU revised it down to 2 billion shortly before negotiations broke down.
In the event, UK offered £60-70 million. About 1% of EU’s asking price. For note also, UK offered 7 times more than Canada – which was accepted into enhanced-access for euro 10 million.
There is also some confusion that SAFE is a pan-EU fund which all countries contribute to, based on GDP size. That is false. EU countries make no such contribution. SAFE is effectively a EU backed low-interest loan available to member states only to enhance their defense capabilities. Each country that borrows funds from SAFE will pay back over a long term period. Poland is the largest borrower, followed by France.
UK Government called EU’s demands “absurd”
I suggest reading FT and https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/safe-security-action-europe_en
What is fair-value for UK??
Using AI tools and data from SAFE website, the UK contribution landed circa 1.5 billion euro – provided that enhanced access was up to 100% of SAFE (rather than capped at 50%) and EU provided minimum contract award guarantees to UK.
That’s good technical detail. Thank you. Interesting geopolitical field to play. I think the government called this correctly and came to a sensible decision.
What is clear is that the defence investment plan is needed now and we have to start reversing the dreadful rot and capability and numbers cuts our armed forces have been afflicted with.
Some quick easy wins
Add 5 more type 31s
A few more Proteus and Stirling castle class offshore critical infrastructure/ mine counter measure specialist ships
Order 2 more type 26s
Continue work on type 83 air dominance programme
Roll out dragonfire onto more platforms
Get MRSS into production
Push on with Aukus/ SSNr
Push on with GCAP
More land Ceptor units
Consider GBAD via Aster 30NT we would only need a token force to cover 5-6 main sites, max £3 billion should ensure rogue ballistic missiles can be intercepted.
Wedgetail- put the order back to 5 immediately but potentially upto the required 7
5 more Poseidon MPAs
All Chally to C3 standard and all fitted with APS sets
Get more than 37 RCH 155s into service
I would like to see another typhoon batch but think the F35A might be a better bet potentially to bridge the gap until Tempest comes into service, alternatively purchase the 24 Tranche 2s off Spain, at least we know they can be fitted with UK armaments.
Just a few relatively easy wins we can and should be doing.
No brainer. If it makes financial, industrial and security sense the UK should join and pay the joining fee, given that the EU fund is financed by its members.
A better agreement would be 3-5% percent of all the business we obtain.
That will give incentives for increased cooperation.
Pay £6.5b just to bid?
That £6.5b would be better spent on filling existing gaps.
We are selling and co developing Caam with Italy, Poland sales to Sweden anyway.
Tempest with Italy and Norway is purchasing Type 26. UK /Germany are working on long range strike.
The bigger nations will always favour their own , France wouldn’t purchase UK systems if they could sell their own.
£2b on RFA resilience and weapon stocks for the RN.
£2b on 20 new build Typhoon for the RAF
£2b for GBAD, and weapons stocks for the army.