Resetting the UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Jay of Ewelme Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

My Lords, this is a full and comprehensive report from the European Affairs Committee, although perhaps controversial, as the noble Baroness has just said. I might also say that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and I worked amicably together in the Foreign Office many years ago, and it is good to be speaking after him today.

What I want to do in this debate today is to say just a few words about defence. Let me start by saying that the UK’s relationship with the US on defence and on security is exceptionally close and should remain so. Our submarine nuclear deterrent is unsustainable without US support. Much of our military equipment is made in the US and is dependent on American spare parts, and we have a close and important intelligence relationship too. For the last 50 years and more, that relationship has gone hand in glove with NATO, and let us hope that that continues, not least, as others have said already, in supporting Ukraine. But NATO depends heavily on the US and, at least at present, the US is, alas, an uncertain ally, so a closer security and defence relationship with the EU makes sense, and the EU-UK Security and Defence Partnership is a good start.

However, the Government’s response to the committee’s excellent report describes the security and defence partnership as

“a structured framework for cooperation”.

Structured frameworks are necessary, but it is what goes into them that matters. Let us hope that flexibility on both sides, as suggested perhaps in Munich recently, leads to a sensible agreement, including on SAFE, on which, like the noble Lord Ricketts, I hope the Minister can bring us up to date.

Let us hope, too, that this developing UK-EU relationship on security and defence can work closely and effectively with NATO. We hope that that is the ideal, but we cannot be sure. NATO is facing uncertainty, as I said, and the EU is essentially an economic construct with nimbleness not exactly its watchword—on that point I perhaps agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redwood; I do not agree with him on many things, but I probably agree with him on that. As the nature of defence changes, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned, we need a more informal, nimbler, less bureaucratic association, a coalition of the willing. That is developing fast, with the UK, France and Germany at its core and Poland, the Baltic states and, outside the EU, Canada working with it too. But all this needs money—money that is needed for our security. The Prime Minister has promised it. I hope that the Minister can confirm that that promise is not a chimera, a bubble without substance, but a firm commitment to provide men and up-to-date equipment soon.