For decades it was accepted that Europe is from Venus and America is from Mars, and in more recent years it has been clear that Russia recognises the value of guns but Europe prefers butter. Now, vexingly, the question is not “defence or welfare” but something much less delicate and much more stupid: artillery shells or Dover sole?
Hard as it is to credit, negotiations over a UK-EU defence pact are presently caught in the nets of a dispute over fishing. Since a defence agreement is required to allow UK companies to benefit from funds released by the EU to encourage the rebuilding of European defences, and since European armies would benefit from access to UK armaments, this would, in a sane world, be an easy agreement.
But this is Europe, where few things are easy and not everything is sane. The stakes are clear, however. Last month Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, put it starkly: “If we look at military expenditure in real terms, the Kremlin is spending more than all of Europe combined.”
• We went Dutch in case Brexit flopped. Just as well
Adopting the persona of Hegel’s owl of Minerva — forever taking wing at dusk — von der Leyen intimated that everyone had always known Europe would one day need to “step up”. Now, in the nick of time and because crisis is the mother of necessity, the costs of doing so could no longer be avoided. What was an expensive business yesterday had become a cheaper one today because the costs of inaction, of failing to meet the moment, had risen dramatically.
Yet if this really is Europe’s hour, you need not be a cold-eyed cynic to think Europe will be late for an appointment with its own destiny. Talk is easier than action — and Europe loves to talk.
Thanks to 14 years of Conservative indifference and Treasury hostility, Britain’s armed forces are nothing like they once were. But they are also more credible than those fielded by other European nations. In terms of defence and security, Britain is still a top-tier European power. Consequently, European defence agreements that do not involve the UK are weaker than they should be.
This challenges assumptions everywhere. For the UK, defence and security rapprochement may eventually require shifting closer to the EU in other areas. It certainly means recognising that “ourselves alone” is not a viable proposition in this new age. But Europe must move too. Some things are more important than bloody Brexit.
• Russian missile strike kills at least 34 in Ukraine’s Sumy
There are good reasons to wish for improved relations with the EU. “Resetting” that relationship should not be confused with watering down Brexit but nor should defence be held hostage by negotiations over youth mobility schemes or Gibraltar or, most egregiously, fish.
Yet this is precisely what appears to be happening. Last week Kaja Kallas, the former prime minister of Estonia now serving as the EU’s foreign policy chief, told the BBC she was “surprised at how important the fish are, considering the security situation”. If nothing else, this demonstrated that understatement is not a uniquely British way of talking.
It is both irksome and predictable that UK-EU defence agreements could be held hostage by mackerel but even extraordinary times cannot bring a gun to a bureaucratic knife fight. Diplomats from across Europe, but especially from northern and eastern Europe, agree that the French are blocking progress on a new UK-EU defence pact that would benefit Britain and Europe in equal measure.
Taking back control of British fisheries proved — surprise! — more difficult in practice than in Brexiteering theory. European boats retain rights to fish in British waters, albeit to a lesser degree than previously. The agreement signed in 2021 increased Britain’s allocation of fish in UK waters by 25 per cent over five years. Those arrangements run out next year, at which point a fresh settlement will be required.
• Who owns British Steel — and will it be nationalised?
In the hierarchy of needs, however, only profoundly unserious people would tie defence to fish. However satisfying it might be to screw more concessions out of London, even Paris ought to appreciate that ancient diplomatic instincts should be tempered by an awareness of the continent’s present predicament. Not everything is a zero-sum game.
Plenty of European figures recognise this. Kallas says Britain is the EU’s “most logical defence and security partner” and this should be a “beneficial relationship for both sides”. Others share this view. Jessica Rosencrantz, Sweden’s EU affairs minister, told Politico last month that EU-UK co-operation on defence was “really important” but that “other sensitive issues”, including fisheries, “also need to be resolved”. Here again you discover politicians mystified that French access to haddock rivals Polish or Finnish access to British-made weapons systems. For once Britain is not the chief villain; for once Britain is actually one of the good guys.
“We need a surge in European defence. And we need it now,” von der Leyen says. This has the advantage of being true but the surge is twofold. First, Europe must continue to keep Ukraine afloat, buying time and opportunity for peace — if any such thing is ever possible — forged on terms acceptable to Kyiv. Second, Europe must rearm to replenish stocks depleted by its support for Ukraine and to provide a firmer, more credible, defence posture for individual states.
This is difficult — and expensive — enough anyway. To make it harder by tying defence to fish is worse than absurd. Serious times demand seriousness and so the question arises: how serious are we?
