In the last couple of weeks, policy on defence has suddenly moved centre-stage – to the point where even Lib Dem Voice has an article about it! The support given to Ukraine by our parliamentary party is no less than one would expect, but perhaps we should look a little deeper, as there’s an idea for making defence spending more effective which the Liberal Democrats are ideally placed to champion.
Much political and media attention is focused on the need to spend more on defence as a percentage of GDP. Starmer realised the significance of this and the need to act urgently ahead of his visit to the White House. He shifted from his 2024 manifesto position of 2.5 per cent ‘when resources allow’ to 2.5 per cent from 2027, with funding coming from reductions in international development assistance.
But we need to be clear on what the money will buy. What capabilities does the UK need? Also, how do we ensure value for money – maximising the benefit from each pound, both in terms of defence capability but also as a contribution to UK jobs and economic growth, rather than US imports?
Currently the UK’s defence, intelligence and security arrangements are effectively joined at the hip with the US. Our nuclear deterrent is supplied by the US. Our intelligence comes largely from the US through the Five Eyes network, led by the US. Much of our kit is purchased from the US and our command and control is dependent on US technology.
So a pressing question is whether we now need to establish our own defence capability independent of the US. In the short term, this may be difficult – hence the need to maintain a relationship with President Trump. But in the medium term, and particularly in how the UK uses its increased defence budget, there is an urgent need to move away from US dependence, as the last few weeks have underlined.
We could attempt to do this on a UK-only basis. Or we could attempt it through much greater cooperation and integration across Europe. While grateful for European support, the Ukrainians have experienced at first hand the difficulties of fighting a war using what they have described as a ‘military zoo’. The EU has 12 types of battle tank, while the US has one.
This, then, is the opportunity. At a time when the UK and its European partners need to step up expenditure on defence when resources are limited, it is vital that the extra money is spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. Crucially, if the UK is to realise economies of scale and interoperability and have the ability to act without relying on the US, then Europe’s military capabilities must be integrated much more closely. We need to create a single European defence industry capable of supplying our needs, ensuring European control of the technology, and ensuring that the economic benefits, including jobs, are shared fairly with our partners on this side of the Atlantic.
The Liberal Democrats have the chance to champion this distinctive approach, which is in line with the traditions of our party and its consistent support for the European project. It is also a core argument in the new What would Paddy do? submission to the policy review working group published this week.
Of course there will be some criticism. Our opponents will claim we want a single European army. It doesn’t have to be an army – what is important are European defence industry standards, cooperation on military procurement, greater intelligence sharing, more joint exercises and joint missions, and so on.
And anyway, what is the alternative? Out of this undoubted crisis, we should grasp the opportunity of establishing more meaningful European defence cooperation.
* Duncan Brack is a member of the Federal Policy Committee and chaired the FPC’s working group that wrote Rebuilding Trade and Cooperation with Europe, passed by conference in spring 2022.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1339
Kemi Badenoch vs the Conservative Party: how the polling compares - The Week in Polls
F10 is passed overwhelmingly. Now the work begins...
Blackness Road - 1967 #dundeewestend
Torchwood is now a Cardiff Bay institution
Zachary Adam Barker
tom arms
Neil Hickman
Joe Bourke
13 Comments
Thank you for a thought provoking article!
Might it be worth considering changing our weapons vendor from the U. S. A. to France, the second biggest arms producer in the World?
Why pay money to a country, the government of which is threatening to steal Canada, a Commonwealth country?
Why did our governments foolishly de-industrialise?
P.S. Why did the then H. M. G., under the Thatcher (mal)administration, passively accept the U. S. A invasion of Commonwealth country Grenada in 1983?
Much of our defence industrial capability is already owned by multi-nationals headquartered in Europe, for example Leonardo UK and Thales UK. So building defence capability with Europe is easier than it first appears.
@Steve: The invasion of Grenada followed a military coup in that country, in which the rebels had assassinated the prime minister, leading to the the Governor General of Grenada and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States asking for help. As a direct result of the US invasion, liberal democracy was restored. That is one example of military intervention that you’d be a bit hard pressed to criticise.
I do rather agree though that, in the present environment, we probably need to look for sources of arms other than the US (and if we do that, we should also be making it very clear, and looking for ways to communicate to American voters, that it is directly the unreliability of their current administration that is making us reluctant to place orders in America). Maybe we should also consider buying from Canada?
Germany seems best placed to rapidly expand its armanents production from both a fiscal and manufacturing capacity position. The incoming Chancellor Friedrich Merz has done a complete about turn on Germany’s debt brake and is advocating exempting defence and infrastructure spending from the brake that limits the structural budget deficit to 0.35 percent of GDP.
The German chancellor appears to see these measures as meeting two urgent needs – rearmement and restoring economic growth to the German economy.
As a consequence, the UK may find itself incorporating more German made armanennts in its military kit then has previously been the case.
I do wonder if the debate on military spending as % of GDP is missing something. If we spent a billion extra supporting Ukraine, wouldn’t that make more of a contribution to our security than spending a billion directly on UK defence?
Russia has for a long time been engaged in hostilities against the UK, Europe and Nato countries. Those hostilities take the form of assymetric warfare involving cyberwarfare, electoral interference, political destabilisation, coup’s and separist movements, riots, terrorism, espionage, disinformation, sabotage, engagement with organised crime networks as well as direct military intervention in Georgia and Ukraine.
The RUSI article notes The Components of Russia’s Undeclared War Against the West
“Russia’s undeclared war against the West is already underway, and the stubborn refusal to acknowledge this fact by most Western leaders makes the West’s defeat only a matter of time.”
Might the attached Wikipedia account of the invasion of Grenada be of interest?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Grenada
“What capabilities does the UK need?” is a version of Jo Grimond’s question which post Suez he regularly insisted should always be the starting point for any defence policy.
The talk of buying/importing more arms/equipment from another country is misplaced. The UK used to have an almost full capability defence industry that was the 3rd largest after the US and Russia (close to 2nd) until maybe the 90s (I don’t have the chart data to see when we dropped down the league). Part of that dropping down the league was the sale of some companies to e.g. the French – a familiar story from the utility industries.
We need to spend most of the defence budget in the UK for increased high-value employment, strategic self-reliance, and export potential. Govenrment expenditure in procuring from a domestic producer is an increase the country’s Intellectual Property (with some potential civilain application by-products to be sold/exported and vice-versa (cyber security comes to mind as a 2-way street)) and the money circulates within the economy with appropriate precentage going back to the government in various taxes (business rates, PAYE, VAT) and portions that don’t return in taxes are spent supporting other parts of the local economy.
I should have added that an Industral strategy is needed in support of the output of the defence review, plus an agricultural strategy, for a rubust self reliant economy with a positive trade balance. When I was young, the concept of GDP was not in our coinciousness but the news would report “this month’s trade figures”.
@Ellyott. Yes. This.
There *should* be a “Defence Industrial Strategy” documents out in the next few months from HMG.
This should document the approach to defence acquisition that HMG/MOD intend to take.
The Tories declined to write one during their stint. It would restrict their freedom to duck and dive.
It would also give the NAO and PAC something to measure against. Failure to adopt professional
ways of managed acquisition would show up immediately. Also investors would use it to
mark the homework of MOD, which is necessary for long term partnering. Spearfish is a good
example of doing it right. Ajax the opposite.
What the MOD might like to do, but have been prevented by central government was,
civil service habit, and Tory ministers, is calculate starting with the HMG security policy
down to defence policy, defence tasks, department risk register, and so to the needed
capabilities, personnel, equipment, and so on. There is a body of theory for this.
It has not been applied since the Cold War. Something else, about budgets, is used instead.
This is a fine idea, though being outside the EU I don’t see how it can be easily achieved.
We should also work with our european allies to understand in the real world of conflct how we can best contribute to a european force. Interoperability is a though not the only method to achieve this.
Duncan has contributed a fine set of arguments for the kind of practical, progressive and at heart patriotic proposals that should mark a liberal approach to defence. As Chair of the LibDem Friends of the Armed Forces (yes we have a stand at Harrogate) the nuances and necessary details are important. But the big picture is the direction of travel. If it is a comprehensive response to sexual misconduct in the Forces, any u turn on retention/recruitment practices or closer “in theatre” alignment, these debates are ours.