logo
The problem of striking a defence deal with the EU

The problem of striking a defence deal with the EU

Spectator6 days ago
The UK-EU summit in London in May at which a new relationship between the parties was agreed seems a long time ago now. In fact, it is barely eight weeks, but we live in a world which has supercharged Harold Wilson's mordant dictum that 'a week is a long time in politics'. They seem like aeons now.
One major subject at the summit was the EU's financial instrument Security Action for Europe (Safe). This is a fund of €150 billion (£130 billion) which will provide loans for member states to undertake urgent, large-scale defence procurement projects, with the aim of addressing capability gaps and boosting the European defence industry's production capacity. However, Brussels makes clear that 'beneficiary member states will have to carry out, in principle, common procurements involving at least two participating countries to qualify for the loans'.
It is now clear that the UK will need to pay a fee to participate in this scheme. The amount has not yet been fixed, but EU diplomats reason that 'since British businesses would receive EU money to create jobs and expand capacity under the scheme, London should recompense Brussels'. France is said to be pushing for a significant contribution, while others, including Germany, are keen not to set the tariff so high that the UK does not participate at all.
This should come as no surprise. The prima facie terms of the Safe scheme, initially excluding the US and the UK (between them home to ten of the world's twenty biggest defence contractors), left French and German manufacturers like Thales, Rheinmetall and KNDS at the head of the queue to benefit from new spending. Thales and KNDS, as well as Naval Group and Safran, are, as it happens, part-owned by the French state. In these circumstances, the question of who benefits was not a particularly challenging one.
Surely this wasn't supposed to happen? At the summit in May, Sir Keir Starmer said that the UK-EU agreement would 'open the door to working with the EU's new defence fund – providing new opportunities for our defence industry, supporting British jobs and livelihoods'. That was, I argued at the time, one of the main motivating factors behind the agreement. After all, the rules for Safe make it clear:
Safe will also allow acceding countries, candidate countries, potential candidates and countries that have signed a security and defence partnership with the EU, such as the United Kingdom, to join common procurements.
Alas, there was a brief cautionary note that Britain's participation would be 'subject to a separate negotiation and conditions, including a financial contribution from the UK'. The European Commission's spokesman for defence, Thomas Regnier, told the Financial Times that, under the terms of the agreement, UK-based companies could provide up to 35 per cent of the value of procurement through Safe, but going beyond that would depend on 'an agreement with the EU on the precise modalities on aspects such as budget contribution and security of supply'.
This was inevitable. The EU is a fundamentally protectionist organisation which seeks to gain as much advantage as possible for the economies of its member states. That is not a criticism, merely an observation: but it has highlighted the disadvantages of pursuing defence policy through the EU, of which we are not a member, rather than Nato, a dedicated military alliance of which we have been part for more than 75 years.
(It is true the overlap between the EU and Nato is not complete: although acting through the latter would include the US, Canada and Turkey, it would exclude the military superpowers of Austria, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus.)
The Cabinet Office has offered bland, reality-defying reassurance: 'It is in all our interests for the UK and EU to bring together our unique capabilities and expertise to make Europe a safer, more secure, and more prosperous place'. Indeed so, but perhaps that is a message better directed towards the French government, while there still is one.
There have been pious expressions of hope that 'parochial national interests' do not undermine Safe's potential to contribute to Europe's overall security. But this is the EU, the bare-knuckle fight club of national interests. It has weak defence institutions but strong ambitions to accrete more competencies to the centre. And the hard-edged realpolitik of Brussels is showing the relative emptiness of the clutch of bilateral agreements Starmer has concluded.
There is a clear choice. What is Europe's overriding priority: building the continent's defence capabilities or strengthening national defence industrial bases? The rules governing Safe effectively choose the latter; that is a matter for member states. But perhaps the British government should not have so eagerly chased a mechanism that was bound to work to our disadvantage. The Strategic Defence Review set out a 'Nato First' policy – perhaps we should have focused more closely on that mantra.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

EU-UK trade deal: Ireland 'not exactly celebrating', minister of state says
EU-UK trade deal: Ireland 'not exactly celebrating', minister of state says

BBC News

time18 minutes ago

  • BBC News

EU-UK trade deal: Ireland 'not exactly celebrating', minister of state says

Ireland is "not exactly celebrating" the new EU-US trade deal, an Irish minister has said, but added that it provides certainty. US President Donald Trump and European Commission Ursula von der Leyen announced on Sunday they have agreed a US tariff on all EU goods of 15%. That is half the 30% import tax rate Trump had threatened to implement starting on Friday. He said the 27-member bloc would open its markets to US exporters with zero per cent tariffs on certain Richmond, a minister of state in Ireland's foreign affairs department, said the deal "gives us that certainty that has been lacking in the last number of months". Among EU countries, Ireland is the most reliant on the US as an export market."We're not exactly celebrating this, it's not a case that this is a good thing but it's probably the least bad option based on what we were facing a couple of days ago, the prospect of a 30% tariff," Richmond told BBC Radio Ulster's Good Morning Ulster on Monday. "The EU is a tough negotiator but this isn't like any trade deal I have ever experienced before, in my 15 odd years of working on EU trade deals. It is what it is and we move on."He added: "We don't want a tariff war, tariffs are a bad thing. We want stability for businesses and we have that today."Trump has wielded tariffs against major US trade partners in a bid to reorder the global economy and trim the American trade der Leyen has hailed the deal, saying it will bring stability for both allies, who together account for almost a third of global EU's top official described the deal as a "framework" agreement, with further technical details to be negotiated "over the next weeks". Speaking of the pharmaceutical sector, Richmond said there was a "case made" that certain medications would be tariff free. "These are some of the areas we will have to dig into, but absolutely we have a lot to work on," he said. "The pharmaceutical sector isn't just really important to a lot of Irish businesses, it must be said it's really important to a lot of American consumers and crucially patients who rely on these drugs too." 'New era of stability' Speaking following the announcement, Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Micheál Martin said the news of the trade deal is "very welcome".Martin said the fact that tariffs would still be higher than before would make trade "more expensive and more challenging".However, he added that the agreement will bring "a new era of stability" and will "help protect many jobs in Ireland".Speaking to Good Morning Ulster on Monday, former UK ambassador to the US Lord Kim Darroch said: "As an outcome, it's a relief I guess for everyone in the European Union that it's not worse, but this isn't anything for great celebration, this is a backwards step."In 2024, Ireland exported goods worth £60.4bn ($81.1bn) to the commission has the mandate to negotiate trade deals for the entire bloc - but it still requires approval by EU member states, whose ambassadors will meet on Monday for a debrief from the commission.

Defiant salon owner vows to fight 'aggressive' trademark battle with beauty giant L'Oreal over her nkd brand
Defiant salon owner vows to fight 'aggressive' trademark battle with beauty giant L'Oreal over her nkd brand

Daily Mail​

time18 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Defiant salon owner vows to fight 'aggressive' trademark battle with beauty giant L'Oreal over her nkd brand

A defiant salon owner has vowed to fight an 'aggressive' trademark battle with beauty giant L'Oréal, which she claims forced her to close her shop. Rebecca Dowdeswell, 49, has been locked in a legal dispute with the global cosmetics firm and says she has already spent more than £30,000 defending her position. The mother-of-two, from Nottingham, runs the waxing salon 'nkd', a business she first trademarked in 2009; however, the protection expired after ten years, requiring renewal. Under current rules, companies have a six-month window to reapply for a lapsed trademark, but if they miss the deadline, they must start a new application from scratch. Ms Dowdeswell admitted she had put the renewal 'on the list' but said it wasn't 'at the top', calling the decision 'naive'. Her business was forced to shut during the Covid-19 pandemic, with the following two years proving 'so hard' for those in the beauty sector. By the time she reapplied for the trademark in 2022, she was met with a formal objection from L'Oréal. The French company argued that her brand name 'nkd' could cause 'consumer confusion' with its own 'Naked' eyeshadow range. Rebecca Dowdeswell, 49, has been locked in a legal dispute with the global cosmetics firm and says she has already spent more than £30,000 defending her position But rather than back down, Ms Dowdeswell has launched a counterclaim and is now taking on the £233billion firm herself. An Intellectual Property Office (IPO) hearing has now been scheduled to take place later this year, after the unyielding business owner demanded that L'Oréal withdraw several of its own trademark applications. She said: 'I don't feel like I should have been put in this situation in the first place. 'People typically don't challenge them; I've stuck it out. 'We sort of turned the tables and filed actions against them to rescind some of the trademark. We're spelt differently and pronounced differently, which is a huge part of my frustration. 'The UK beauty market as a whole is a massive market. We're not Naked, we're nkd. We're very tied to just waxing and hair removal products. They can get away with it because they're L'Oréal - this is sheer corporate bullying.' She said she had no choice but to fight for her company, which she has invested so much time in. 'It's a trend that you see - they know they have little chance of winning, but they know their pockets are so much deeper than my own. 'You would probably get 90 per cent of companies walking away. I was put in an impossible situation really. I could either walk away from the brand I spent the last 13 years building up or I could defend this and fight this, and it's cost me a lot. 'It has been a huge drain on the financial side but also the impact on myself and my family has been enormous.' Companies have a six-month window to reapply for their trademark after it runs out, or else they have to submit an entirely new application. She said the pandemic delayed her reinstating the trademark, and she was then left frustrated when her application was objected. She added: 'It cannot be fair or right that small companies such as mine are put in this position. 'And if the huge corporations didn't routinely exploit their power and abuse the rules of the UK IPO, knowing that they will likely get away with it due to their sheer size and domination of the market, then this situation wouldn't arise.' L'Oréal claims the nkd branding infringes on their line of Naked eyeshadows, despite the two being pronounced differently. The giant trademarked the Naked name in 2004 but left it unused until they launched their Urban Decay brand in 2010. Ms Dowdeswell added: 'The Naked name is for a wide range of goods which they aren't using. 'We've said this is against the rules of the UK IPO, companies shouldn't trademark against goods they don't use. 'We applied to remove the trademark on goods they aren't using. Like cotton wool, shower gel, deodorants and shaving foams. 'All they apply it against is a subset of makeup - just eye shadow pallets. 'They don't need the trademark on such a wide range of products, it's like a monopoly. 'They have no intention of using it, that's where the abuse of the rules comes in. 'Just because they're a massive company, no one ever stands up to them. 'They first applied for the Naked trademark in 2004. That's 20 years they've had some of these goods trademarked. 'We're nkd and we launched in 2009 - L'Oréal then launched the Urban Decay brand, which has the Naked line in 2010.' A L'Oréal spokesperson said previously: 'We are wholly committed to resolving any misunderstanding there might have been with Rebecca Dowdeswell. 'From the beginning of our exchanges with her lawyers in 2022, we have communicated an offer that supports her business aspirations whilst respecting our longstanding trademark rights.

100ml liquid restriction set to be scrapped across European airports – but there's a catch
100ml liquid restriction set to be scrapped across European airports – but there's a catch

The Independent

time19 minutes ago

  • The Independent

100ml liquid restriction set to be scrapped across European airports – but there's a catch

Airports across the European Union (EU) are finally set to scrap the 100ml liquid restrictions for passengers – but there's a catch. The constraint was due to be scrapped last summer, but a European Commission (EC) ruling kept it in place temporarily. Now, aviation hubs with advanced scanners will allow passengers to carry wine, olive oil, perfume and other liquids in containers of up to two litres. Participating airports include travel hotspots such as Berlin, Rome, Amsterdam and Milan, with more expected to follow. While many major airports already have the advanced scanners, not all do, including London's Heathrow. It would cost the airport £1.04bn to install the equipment. There will be no mandatory requirement for airports to implement the new technology and it will be the decision of individual facilities to purchase the scanners. Consequently, the new ruling could cause confusion for passengers departing from an airport with the scanners, but returning home via an airport without them. In this instance, only 100ml would be allowed in the hand luggage on the return flight. The scanners use computed tomography (CT) to scan luggage with increased accuracy. Their introduction also means passengers will no longer have to remove other items from cabin baggage, such as laptops and tablets, further streamlining the security process. The major change was first reported by Italian news outlet Corriere della Sera and confirmed by the European Commission, with the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) set to green light the move imminently. European Commission spokesperson Anna-Kaisa Itkonen told The Independent that they were expecting the ruling to be confirmed 'in the next [few] days.' 'Once individual manufacturer's airport equipment passes tests and gets ECAC approval, it can receive the EU Stamp, permitting the screening of liquids of larger than 100ml. 'After receiving this approval, the equipment may be deployed for use at airports.' The Independent has approached the ECAC for comment. Birmingham and Edinburgh airports to remove the 100ml liquid restriction, while other UK airports still enforce the limit. Under existing rules, hand luggage liquids must be packed in containers carrying no more than 100ml, with some exceptions for baby products and medicines.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store