80th Anniversary of Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan

Lord Stirrup Excerpts

Friday 9th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the commemoration of VE Day this week was a particularly poignant one, since it was probably the last major landmark at which we will see significant numbers of veterans. When the last human link to the Second World War is gone, there is a danger that the trauma of that time will move from being a lived community experience to a dry historical fact. If we allow that to happen, the lessons of history become weakened, and we increase the risk of repeating past mistakes. Remembrance is thus crucial to our understanding of not just the past but the present, and the perils of the future. Much of this week has been about remembering the courses and conduct of the war. However, important though that is, we must go further.

One of my regrets about the centenary commemorations of the First World War is that they largely ended with the anniversary of November 1918, marking the end of the fighting. We would have done well to reflect much more than we did on the diplomatic and political failures of 1919 onwards, which set the conditions for the subsequent catastrophe that unfolded in the 1930s and 1940s.

The aftermath of the Second World War was very different. The effort that went into reconstructing societies, rebuilding political trust and creating an international order formed the context in which we have lived our lives ever since. That is the legacy of the Second World War generation, but that legacy is now at risk. Aggressive war is once more being waged in Europe. Meanwhile, the umbrella of American might under which we have sheltered for so long is looking, to say the least, somewhat leaky. We in Europe have for years neglected our own military power, relying on others to make up the deficit. Now we are being measured by events and found wanting, as we were in the 1930s.

NATO protected our societies through the long, testing years of the Cold War and it remains the best, indeed the only, credible instrument for ensuring our future security. But it is a different NATO from the one we have been used to. It is a NATO that must recognise the substantial shift of American power from Europe to the Indo-Pacific, a shift that will continue whoever occupies the White House. It is a NATO in which European members must shoulder a much greater share of the burden for their own security than they have done for many years.

There is growing acceptance of this truth, but we still fail to accept the consequences. The first is the need for us in Europe, particularly those with the larger economies, to spend much more on defence. By much more, I do not mean marginal increases but something in the order of twice what we currently spend. The second consequence is the need for a way of funding, developing, procuring and operating the strategic military capabilities for which we have for too long been over-reliant on the United States. It cannot be NATO, because not all members of the alliance are European. It cannot be the EU, because not all members of the EU are in NATO and not all European members of NATO are in the EU.

The Brussels-based think tank, Bruegel, recently published a paper proposing a different solution: a European defence mechanism. This would be a procurement agency that would in specified areas plan, fund and potentially own strategic enablers, which could then be committed to NATO. It would be achieved through an intergovernmental treaty along the lines of that which set up the European stability mechanism in response to Covid. Importantly, it would enable the UK to engage in the improvement of European defence capabilities as an equal partner, not as an adjunct to the EU—with all the limitations that come with such a status. This is the kind of innovative thinking we so desperately need in response to the serious challenges we face, and I commend it to the Minister.

This is a particularly appropriate moment to consider such matters. This week we commemorate the efforts and sacrifices of those who served this country, and European security more widely, throughout the Second World War. Yet there could surely be no better act of commemoration than safeguarding their legacy for future generations by ensuring the continued defence of the freedoms for which so many of them, like Sergeant Coaker, paid such a bitter price.