Victory for France-backed ‘Buy European’ approach to defence spending

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/24105021

Archive: https://archive.is/2025.03.19-115656/https://www.ft.com/content/eb9e0ddc-8606-46f5-8758-a1b8beae14f1

The planned fund for capitals to spend on weapons would only be open to EU defence companies and those from third countries that have signed defence agreements with the bloc, officials said on Wednesday.

It would also exclude any advanced weapons systems upon which a third country had “design authority” — restrictions on its construction or use of particular components — or control over its eventual use, the officials added.

That would exclude the US Patriot air and missile defence platform, which is manufactured by defence contractor RTX, and other US weapons systems where Washington has restrictions on where they can be used.

The policy is a victory for France and other countries that have demanded a “Buy European” approach to the continent’s defence investment push, amid fears over the long-term dependability of the US as a defence partner and supplier sparked by President Donald Trump.

At least 65 per cent of the cost of the products would need to be spent in the EU, Norway and Ukraine.

EU member states would not be able to spend the money on products “where there can be a control on the use or the destination of that weapon . . . It would be a real problem if equipment acquired by countries cannot be used because a third country would object,” one of the officials said.

  • ReasonableHat@lemmy.world
    917·
    10 hours ago

    This is utter madness in relation to the UK if the EU keeps insisting on including other crap (e.g. fishing rights) in any third country defence agreement. The UK is as much a part of Europe and has as much of an interest in its defence as Norway and Ukraine, for example.

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      24·
      9 hours ago

      UK voted for this, and not just in the referendum. Every time Brits get the choice they picked politicians that treat Europeans as outsiders. If you are out you are out, you can’t peek back in when there’s money on the table.

      • rooroo@feddit.org
        13·
        9 hours ago

        And it’s not like a shared interest in a secure Europe is being disregarded. Just EU money going to EU states or those with contracts if I’m not reading this wrongly.

        • ReasonableHat@lemmy.world
          21·
          8 hours ago

          Just to add, the references to Norway and Ukraine were deliberate because they are not in the EU. Also, I don’t think the requirement for third countries to commit to defence pacts with the EU is inherently bad, but it should be just that - a defence pact to meet the most pressing threat Europe faces. Making a defence pact conditional on the UK granting access to its fishing waters is moronic.

      • ReasonableHat@lemmy.world
        32·
        8 hours ago

        It is just sad to see the same short-sighted pettiness undermining Europe’s common interest. I’m not sure your specific points hold any water; obviously nobody anywhere in Europe has voted for this in a general election / referendum, and the current UK governing party (which won a large parliamentary election last year) was for remaining in the EU.

        • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
          8·
          8 hours ago

          The current UK government refused even something as simple as free movement for university students. And the changes in European policy have been almost cosmetic.

      • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
        3·
        4 hours ago

        Yes but they would be force to concede all of their privileges they had last time in relations to things like GBP, finance industry etc which would be non starter for UK

        And why would other EU member states accept these privileges for UK after UK’s brexit behavior and rhetoric

        a classic FAFO for UK. They prolly should tuck their dicks and rejoin tho.