What is Defence for?
Recent governments seems reluctant to define national security goals. There are needs around the Home Islands, the Falklands, Cyprus, Ascension, Diego Garcia, Gibraltar, the Caribbean, and various nations that the government has given “iron clad” security guarantees. There are also commitments to NATO and the Northern Group, in Europe.
For a politician there is a large and vocal demand for defence, but we are told there is no more money. And industry will want certainty – for investment – to start large capital investment and skills pipelines. People around government talk of there being no headroom.
So is there headroom by reducing the requirement? Is government trying to defend Europe, create an Atlantic Bastion, police the Caribbean, hold the Falklands, give guarantees in the Indian Ocean, maintain a presence in Cyprus, provide a US base in Diego Garcia, have a shipyard in Gibraltar, maintain an air-link via Ascension, and other things?
So can we look at the defence needs and remove some to find headroom? The current tasks seem to fall into two categories: Global Power and Euro-Atlantic, and the government gives signs that it wants to do both. But not to fund both to the point of credibility.
Who are these categories for? The Global Power side seems to support a vision of a lost Empire that has not found a role. The needs here include the major centres mentioned above and a large list of “lily-pads” that can be rapidly reinforced by military mass that no longer exists. It may also include the role of riding to help US power, on request.
The Euro-Atlantic category is easier to explain to the public. It includes the UK home islands, the associated airspace and economic zone. It also includes support to all the nations who stand between us and the main regional threats.
It seems hard to understand why some of the far flung commitments are made by Cabinet. With shrinking armed forces, these promises seem impossible to keep. Is it defence diplomacy? Freedom of the Seas? Do they support the British Tax Havens? Maintaining the International Rules Based Order? Are they supporting US global interests? What direct British interest is being addressed?
* Peter Chambers is a member in New Forest, Hampshire
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Private school that suddenly closed after 'misconduct' allegations burns down
A stone out of place and time
Simon Robinson
Robin Bennett
Jonathan Brown
George Thomas
David Le Grice
10 Comments
“UK home islands” is a phrase I don’t believe I have come across before. The UK is located on two principle islands – Great Britain and Ireland – but included other island that are part of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Island. That is the totality of the United Kingdom. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom though we may wish to defend them.
Does all the above amount to ‘home islands’ or just those that are part of the UK?
Jana raises an interesting point about the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands which are crown dependencies with their own legislatures.
In WW1, in 1916 ,when the UK Asquith Liberal Government was tearing itself apart on the issue of Conscription, the Isle of Man authorities passed their own legislation to apply it (but without the conscientious objector clauses introduced in the UK.).
The UK parliament could not legally impose direct conscription on Jersey, Guernsey, or Alderney without local consent. Guernsey passed its own Compulsory Military Service Act in August 1916. Like the Manx it did not include exemptions for conscientious objectors. Jersey & Alderney also introduced local compulsory military service regulations during 1916 after pressure from the mainland and a shortage of volunteers.
In WW2, the Channel Islands were occupied by Germany, whereas in both world wars the Isle of Man was used to incarcerate German Nationals resident in the UK.
Why the heck should we defend British tax havens to protect tax avoiders ?
British Overseas Territories
British Virgin Islands (BVI): Routinely ranked globally as a top corporate tax haven and financial secrecy jurisdiction.
Cayman Islands: A major hub for offshore banking, investment funds, and corporate shell entities.B
Bermuda: Features a 0% corporate tax rate and high levels of financial privacy.
Turks and Caicos Islands: Offers zero taxation on income, capital gains, and corporations.
Clearly we can no longer afford to keep sending HMS High Value Target and our one or two operational destroyers,frigate and attack subs round the world to demonstrate global power.
David Raw.I agree with you
I am only posting this here because I don’t know where else to vent my frustration. Canada is being increasingly bullied by Trump and,yet we are hearing nothing in our media or any sign of support either from our government or even from our own party which should be a natural supporter of the Canadian Liberal Party. Why aren’t we supporting them?
@ Catherine Hodgkinson Completely agree, although I suspect Mark Carney is perfectly capable of looking after himself (and Canada).
David Raw 20th Aug ’26 – 4:58pm:
Why the heck should we defend British tax havens to protect tax avoiders?
They provide a lot of feed for the UK’s golden goose: the City of London. Without the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies (the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey), the UK would be poorer.
What financial contribution do the UK’s Oversea Territories, such as Bermuda, make to the UK?:
https://gemini.google.com
@ Catherine Hodgkinson 24th Aug ’26 – 2:16pm
Trump keeps stating, without ever producing proof, that his Tariffs are working..
However, .Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Hiltzik points to a 2025 poll of 100 top CEOs which revealed widespread private criticism (‘private’, due to fear of Trump personal reprisals) of Trump’s tariff policies, with 76% saying consumers pay the Some 76% of respondents agreed that U.S. consumers and importers are paying for Trump’s tariffs, not foreign companies or nations, as Trump claims
Our defence policy should be centred around fostering our relationships with countries that have shared interests, values and where we can make a meaninful contribution in creating sufficient resources to achieve significant goals that contribute to a safe and peaceful world.