The UK-EU defence spat is not all about fish
It's unedifying on both sides, sure. But let's not go back to the bad days of Brexit
There is some anger in Britain this morning at the suggestion the EU will not allow any part of a €150bn fund to be splashed on British defence firms. If Britain wants in on the spending spree, the implication seems to be, it must reach a formal pact on security with Brussels and agree concessions on a fishing deal, at the demand of France.
A couple of points to make up top:
It should not be overlooked that the EU Commission will have been aware that this is how the story would land in Britain and were likely OK with it being presented in this way. It is therefore reasonable for some corners of Britain to be irritated by any perception of post-Brexit pettiness, given the perilous state of Europe’s security.
However, that pettiness is possibly about optics, not about where this policy will ultimately end up.
Stories of this type will come up quite a lot in the coming months and years, so I felt compelled to lay out some counterpoints that take in the bigger picture of this specific story.
The accusation is that Brussels is blocking EU member states from handing cash to Britain’s world-class defence sector as it re-arms because of disagreements over fishing rights. This, detractors might say, somewhat misses the point and urgency of Europe’s current security weaknesses.
Let’s take a step back and look at what is broadly going on.
Nothing is set in stone
The catchily-named “ReArm Europe Plan/Readiness 2030” plan is at the moment just a White Paper, published by the EU’s executive body, the Commission. It is subject to change, as are most grand EU policies, when they hit the European Council of member states. It is possible that some member states, particularly those that are geographically closer to Russia, might what certain changes.
€150bn<€800bn
The €150bn, which is central to this morning’s story, is only part of the EU’s plan. The overall ReArm Europe Plan has a top end of €800bn, most of which will be raised by member states themselves as part of their standard defence budgets. The EU cannot dictate how that money can be spent as it doesn’t have the competence to make that demand.
It can encourage member states to spend the money within the EU, which makes sense from their perspective, given the purpose of this is in part to reinvigorate the European defence industrial complex.
The €150bn figure is the part of the plan that will comprise loans from the EU to member states. The EU will raise that money on the capital markets. It is arguably reasonable that given this burden will ultimately fall on EU taxpayers, it is spent within the EU.
Long-term versus short-term
This plan has a long-term ambition to re-arm Europe, as the name suggests. Europe does indeed have a long-term crisis of depleted weapons supplies, among other things.
Europe also has short-term crisis, namely the war happening on its doorstep. European schemes come in many shapes and sizes. As a loosely relevant reference point, the European Defence Industrial Strategy published almost a year ago had similar restrictions on buying outside the bloc. EDIS was a long-term plan. Amidst the row over EDIS, 17 EU member states put together their own plan to buy ammo for Ukraine on international markets outside the EU structures.
In short: there is usually more than one pot of money.
It’s not always about fish
The Europeans are coquettishly implying that Britain could be involved in ReArm, but it will most likely mean a formal security pact and British money going into the scheme.
There is also an insinuation that it’s being used to force us into a deal over fishing rights. On paper, this looks absolutely ridiculous given the relative seriousness of security versus fish.
It might be a negotiating position from the EU, who knows.
But it’s worth acknowledging that fishing is not irrelevant in the wider security conversation. If you speak to people who work in Arctic security, for example, they will tell you that fishing vessels have been used for covert operations including cable interference and surveillance.
No one is suggesting the EU and the UK are going to use fishing vessels in this way, but it’s possibly worth both sides addressing how they might have eyes on each other’s fishing fleets – so they know who is who and what is what.
European fishing waters are vast, as are European oceans. They brush up against the Arctic sea, a key geopolitical battleground right now
I’m not saying this is what’s going on in the UK-ReArm spat, per se. Fishing tends to be about domestic politics, obviously. I am simply trying to point out that you can look at these things from multiple angles, so it’s best not to leap to conclusions.
In short: it would be remiss to dismiss as a row about fish.
The EU will envision many things contingent on a "security pact". They've already indicated strongly they want UK participation in EU peace-keeping missions. I could see some kind of freedom of movement, maybe for under-30s, thrown in the mix along with fisheries.
The bottom line is that excluding the UK defence industry (pending a security pact) is a choice. It was not forced on the Commission. Therefore we are entitled to ask what they are trying to achieve. The loan system rules out 39 of the world's top 50 defence companies. Of the remaining 11, it is *interesting*, isn't it, that four are part-owned by the French state?