EU does hasty reset of definition of defence spending
Summary
New definition needed as spending caps eased
'Defence-relevant' items will qualify
But some countries want broader scope
BRUSSELS, March 20 (Reuters) - When do state investments in arms factories, or the wages of tank crews and pilots not count as defence spending? Answer: When the EU rules say they don't.
Until a few days ago that was the case, with the bloc sticking to a narrow definition of spending on defence hardware.
Make sense of the latest ESG trends affecting companies and governments with the Reuters Sustainable Switch newsletter. Sign up here.
On Thursday, EU leaders will study ways to mobilise hundreds of billions of euros to boost the military readiness of the bloc, which has hastily redefined what it classifies as defence spending.
The revamp, needed because of Russia's threats to its eastern flank and concern over the U.S.' commitment to European security, means the region's 27 national governments will get a four-year reprieve from EU deficit caps that will allow them to spend more on defence.
But while that spending - worth around 1.5% of Europe's total economy each year - will start to make up for decades of underinvestment in security, it can only be given the green light if everybody agrees on what defence spending actually means.
Before a rule change agreed by finance chiefs last week, the building of an ammunition plant was classified as construction rather than defence - something Poland discovered when it pressed ahead with a new 5 billion zloty ($1.3 billion) factory.
Until now, the defence category was quite narrow, allowing EU governments to apply it only to already-delivered hardware - tanks, planes, guns - while excluding the costs of training, hiring and paying new tank crews, pilots and mechanics.
That will change as the EU broadens the category to include most things that are relevant to defence, including so-called "dual-use" goods that can be used by both the military and civilians.
These include stronger roads and bridges to support the passage of tanks, or the production of drones, helicopters, satellites, radars and underground shelters.
BORDERS?
The wider definition is more aligned with what NATO classifies as defence spending as part of a longstanding target for such expenditure to reach 2% of GDP. But it still leaves a lot of room for interpretation by national capitals.
"The debate went already very broad and now, of course, what you're seeing is specific member states coming with their own specific ideas on what else should be considered as defence," one senior EU official said.
While Italy shares no borders with Russia, its arch-conservative government wants the wider definition to include what it spends on dealing with migrants coming from Northern Africa - a request that will not fly, EU officials said.
EU officials say border protection can be defined as "defence" only if it is refers to part of a military installation built to prevent an invasion, rather than normal border guard spending on patrolling the sea to catch boats carrying migrants.
Spain meanwhile has asked for climate change projects to be included in the defence category, an idea the Commission dismissed in the same way as it did migration-control spending.
While cyber security in general would not make the defence list, EU officials said, computers bought by the military to prevent cyber attacks would qualify.
"The idea is that it has to be of defence relevance," a second senior EU official said.
($1 = 3.8519 zlotys)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
2 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Napoleonic prisoner of war camp buried under field bought from farmer
A Napoleonic prisoner of war camp buried under a field in Cambridgeshire has been bought by a trust with the intention of preserving it as a historic site. Norman Cross, the world's first purpose-built prisoner of war camp, was privately owned by a farmer, and has been bought by Nene Park Trust. Located near Peterborough, it contains the remains of around 1,770 French, Dutch and German soldiers captured in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars fought between the French and other European nations. The trust says it wants to preserve the site and make it available to the public as a historic and green space. The camp now lies barely visible under a field used for arable crops and grazing. But it previously held a self-contained town, with barracks, offices, a hospital, school, marketplace and banking system, according to historian Paul Chamberlain. It operated from 1797 to 1814 and housed around 7,000 French prisoners. The location was chosen because it was far from the sea, making it difficult for any escapees to return to France. Prisoners made intricate models from bone, wood and straw to sell at the camp market and trade for food, tobacco and wine. Around 800 of these artefacts, which include miniature ships and chateaus, are on display at the nearby Peterborough Museum and Art Gallery. The trust received £200,000 of grant funding from Historic England and £50,000 from the National Lottery Heritage Fund to buy the camp following years of negotiations. Its acquisition was fought for by resident Derek Lopez, who owned the Norman Cross Gallery near Yaxley and was an advocate of Peterborough's history. He died last year before seeing the sale complete. Duncan Wilson, chief executive of Historic England, said: 'The Norman Cross prisoner of war camp represents a pivotal moment in our shared European heritage that deserves to be better known.' Matthew Bradbury, chief executive of Nene Park Trust, said he was 'delighted' to take on the ownership of Norman Cross and wanted 'to share its green space and unique stories for generations to come'. Heritage minister Baroness Twycross said: 'Norman Cross represents a poignant chapter in our shared European story. 'The remarkable stories of those held in what was the first purpose-built prisoner of war camp should be remembered now and in the future. 'This partnership has secured this valuable heritage site for generations to come.'
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Imperialism still overshadows our intellectual history
Peter Watson begins his survey of the history of ideas in Britain with the assertion that the national mindset (which at that time was the English mindset) changed significantly after the accession of Elizabeth I. His book – a guide to the nature of British intellectual curiosity since the mid-16th century – begins there, just as England had undergone a liberation from a dominant European authority: the shaking off of the influence of the Roman Catholic church and the advent of the Reformation, and the new opportunities that offered for the people. He describes how a culture based largely on poetry and on the court of Elizabeth then redirected the prevailing intellectual forces of the time. This affected not just literature (Marlowe, Shakespeare and Jonson) but also helped develop an interest in science that grew remarkably throughout the next few centuries. The 'imagination' of Watson's title is not merely the creative artistic imagination, but also that of scientists and inventors and, indeed, of people adept at both. The book is, according to its footnotes, based on secondary sources, so those well read in the history of the intellect in Britain since the Reformation will find much that is familiar. There is the odd surprise, such as one that stems from the book's occasional focus on the British empire and the need felt today to discuss its iniquities. Watson writes that the portion of the British economy based on the slave trade (which must not be conflated with empire) was between 1 per cent and 1.4 per cent. He also writes that for much of the era of slavery the British had a non-racial view of it, since their main experience of the odious trade was of white people being captured by Barbary pirates and held to ransom. While this cannot excuse the barbarism endured by Africans shipped by British (and other) slavers across the Atlantic, it lends some perspective to a question in serious danger of losing any vestige of one. Watson does not come down on one side or the other in the empire debate, eschewing the 'balance sheet' approach taken by historians such as Nigel Biggar and Niall Ferguson; but he devotes too much of the last section of his book to the question, when other intellectual currents in the opening decades of the 21st century might have been more profitably explored, not least the continuing viability of democracy. Earlier on, he gives much space to an analysis of Edward Said, and questions such as whether Jane Austen expressed her antipathy to slavery sufficiently clearly in the novel Mansfield Park. But then some of Watson's own analyses of writers and thinkers are not always easily supported. He is better on the 18th century – dealing well with the Scottish enlightenment (giving a perfectly nuanced account of Adam Smith) and writers such as Burke and Gibbon – than he appears to be on the 19th. He gives Carlyle his due, but cites an article in a learned American journal from 40 years ago to justify his claim that Carlyle's 'reputation took a knock' in 1849 with the publication of his Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Watson says readers were offended by the use of the term 'Quashee' to describe a black man. They may well, if so, have been unsettled by the still less palatable title that the Discourse was subsequently given, which was The Nigger Question: it appeared thus in a 1853 pamphlet and in the Centenary Edition of Carlyle's works in 1899. That indicates the Discourse did Carlyle's reputation no lasting harm at the time, whatever it may have done since. In seeking to pack so much into fewer than 500 pages of text, Watson does skate over a few crucial figures. Some of his musings on empire might have been sacrificed to make more space for George Orwell, for example. A chapter in whose title his name appears features just one brief paragraph on him, about Homage to Catalonia, and later there is a page or so on Animal Farm, which says nothing new. Of Orwell's extensive and mould-breaking journalism there is nothing – somewhat surprising in a book about the British imagination when dealing with one of its leading exponents of the past century. Watson emphasises scientific discovery and innovation, and the effect on national life and ideas caused by the Industrial Revolution. These are all essential consequences of our intellectual curiosity, and he is right to conclude that the historic significance of Britain in these fields is immense. He includes league tables of Nobel prizewinners by nation in which Britain shows remarkably well. But these prizes are not the only means by which the contribution to civilisation and progress by a people are measured. There are notable omissions. Although Watson talks about the elitist nature of 'high culture' – such as Eliot and The Waste Land – he does not discuss how far the British imagination, and the British contribution to world civilisation, might have advanced had we taken the education of the masses more seriously earlier. We were, until the Butler Education Act of 1944, appalling at developing our human resources, and have not been much better since. It is surprising that there is no discussion of British music, one of the greatest fruits of the imagination of the past 150 years. And there is no analysis of the role of architecture, which, given its impact and its centrality to many people's idea of themselves as British, surely merited examination. The book shows extensive and intelligent reading, but trying to cram so much information and commentary into one volume has not been a complete success, or resulted in something entirely coherent.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
The betrayal of Gibraltar: Anger at Starmer's 'surrender deal' with EU that hands Spain control over territory's border
Sir Keir Starmer was accused last night of striking another 'surrender' deal after handing over control of Gibraltar's border to the European Union. The agreement means Britons travelling to the peninsula could be refused entry by Spanish guards enforcing the EU rules – despite it being a British Overseas Territory. The arrangement was made to enable the border to fully re-open between Gibraltar and Spain, which is crossed by thousands daily living either side to get to work or visit friends and family. Britons travelling to the territory at present face an initial passport check carried out by Gibraltar officials but they would face a second check carried out by Spanish border officials on behalf of the EU. It means Britons could be rejected if they do not meet strict Schengen Area rules. For instance, post-Brexit Britons cannot stay in the EU for longer than 90 days within any 180-day period without a visa. It raises the prospect of UK travellers needing to obtain an EU visa to visit a British territory if they have exceeded their 90-day allowance, or they face being refused entry at the border. A specific post-Brexit agreement, covering the territory and to keep the Spain-Gibraltar border open, was needed because, at Madrid's insistence, it was not part of the wider EU-UK trade pact struck after Brexit. It was also not included in Sir Keir's 'reset' deal unveiled last month. Foreign Secretary David Lammy and chief minister of Gibraltar Fabian Picardo agreed the new deal in principle in Brussels yesterday. Pictured: Lammy and Picardo in a social media clip Foreign Secretary David Lammy and chief minister of Gibraltar Fabian Picardo agreed the new deal in principle in Brussels yesterday. But Brexiteers warned that the Falklands could be next following Sir Keir's controversial Chagos Islands 'surrender' deal. Tory Armed Forces spokesman Mark Francois said: 'First Chagos and now Gibraltar – and then probably the Falklands, too. This Europhile, human-rights obsessed Government can no longer be trusted to robustly defend any of our overseas interests, as this further needless concession to Spain shows. 'Labour used to sing The Red Flag – now they just wave a big white one instead.' David Jones, former Brexit minister, said: 'There is no reason why British people visiting their own territory should be providing passports to foreign entities. This is contrary to Britain having sovereignty over Gibraltar. 'The Spanish have wanted to get their hands on Gibraltar ever since the Treaty of Utrecht [which handed Britain sovereignty in 1713] – it's a vitally important asset to us. 'It has thousands of our citizens living there and people visiting their own territory should not have to present passports to foreign officials.' Former home secretary Suella Braverman said: 'Another surrender and a hand-over in all but name. It is unforgivable. The Falklands will be next.' The text of the treaty is yet to be finalised and published. However, Government sources insisted 'nothing will compromise the way the Armed Forces operate' at the strategically important RAF Gibraltar military base next to Gibraltar Airport. They insisted residents of the Rock will not be affected by the changes. As well as re-opening the Spain-Gibraltar border for people, the deal also removes goods controls, allowing for them to be traded more smoothly. Mr Lammy said: 'This government inherited a situation from the last government which put Gibraltar's economy and way of life under threat. Today's breakthrough delivers a practical solution after years of uncertainty.' Downing Street said Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez had, in a phone call, congratulated Sir Keir over the Gibraltar deal, claiming 'his government had succeeded where others had failed'.
