EU is ready to ‘ambush’ UK on defence, veterans warn

Theresa May’s offer to the EU will be worth little if our military continues to suffer cuts to its budgets

MILITARY veterans fear Britain is walking into an “ambush” on defence cooperation with the EU as the Government made clear its “unconditional” commitment to maintaining European security.

David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, yesterday set out the UK’S negotiating position on defence and security in which he offered the EU a “deep and special partnership”. The paper calls for a post-brexit relationship “that goes beyond existing third country arrangements” and spells out the importance of British military and intelligence assets in the fight against terrorism and cyber crime.

It suggests the UK could collaborate on European Defence Agency projects and participate in the EU’S new Defence Fund which oversees research and purchases military equipment.

But Col Richard Kemp, former com- mander of British Forces in Afghanistan, said the paper suggested the Government “intends to surrender control of UK defence to the EU”.

Writing for The Telegraph, Col Kemp said: “Under plans the Government has been working on for months, if we want to build another naval warship in the future we will have to go cap in hand to Brussels. When it comes to defence, it is becoming clear that Brexit does not mean Brexit.”

Major-general Julian Thompson, chairman of the pressure group Veterans for Britain, said: “Britain is walking into a carefully planned EU ambush.”

A Government source said: “It is simply not true that we were signing up to an EU army now or in the future.

“We need to work with our allies and the paper sets out the need for bespoke agreements to do this after Britain has taken back control and left the EU.”

It is all very well for Theresa May to offer a “deep security partnership” with the European Union as part of the government’s attempts to inject some momentum into the Brexit negotiations. But the pledge would carry far more weight in Brussels if the Government were to show it was serious about maintaining the strength of our Armed Forces.

Over the course of the summer a great deal of publicity has been generated as the construction phase of the two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers nears completion, at a cost of more than £6 billion. Huge crowds lined the quays at Portsmouth when the Royal Navy’s new flagship, the 65,000-tonne Queen Elizabeth, arrived at its specially built dock.

There were similar jubilant scenes at Rosyth Dockyard last week when the Duchess of Cornwall named the Queen Elizabeth’s sister ship HMS Prince of Wales.

So far as the Government is concerned, the construction of the new ships, which will give Britain the ability to maintain a constant carrier presence around the globe when they enter active service from 2020, demonstrates its commitment to rebuilding the strength of the Services after years of drastic cuts.

Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon is fond of pointing out that the Government is committed to increasing the defence budget in real terms throughout the course of this parliament, and that the Government will spend around £178 billion on new equipment for all three Armed Forces over the next decade.

As Sir Michael commented yesterday when outlining Britain’s plans for maintaining military ties with Europe post-brexit, “With the largest defence budget in Europe, the largest Navy, British troops and planes deployed across land, air and sea in Europe, our role in the continent’s defence has never been more vital.”

But this could prove a hollow boast if, as seems increasingly likely, the Treasury presses ahead with its plans to make further cuts to the defence budget this autumn.

One of the big inconsistencies in the Government’s claim it is reinvesting in Britain’s defence requirements is that, at the same time that it says it is raising the defence budget, it is also looking for what it terms “efficiency savings” amounting to around £20 billion over the next decade.

Thus, at the same time the MOD is building a new generation of warships, warplanes and tanks, the Services are being required to find savings of around £2 billion a year.

There are no doubt some savings the military could make that would not unduly affect its operational effectiveness, for example cutting down on the number of airstrips, buildings and golf courses it has at its disposal.

But senior officers warn that the efficiency savings are now forcing them to cut back on vital training exercises, as well as making significant cuts to orders for new equipment.

Consequently there is mounting concern in senior military circles that attempts by Service chiefs to rebuild the UK’S military strength could be severely undermined by the demand for cuts to the operational budget, especially if Chancellor Philip Hammond decides to end the ring-fenced status that the defence budget enjoys.

As a former defence secretary who oversaw some of the most dramatic cuts to the defence budget in recent history, the Chancellor is seen as being no friend of the military. He is particularly lukewarm about the need to maintain the Army at its current strength at a time when there is no public appetite for “boots on the ground.” Indeed, during his time as defence secretary, Mr Hammond once told a senior officer he saw no point in young people joining the Army for a generation because they would not be required to do anything.

This might explain why the Treasury is now said to be giving serious consideration to making further cuts to the Army’s strength to around 60,000, with the money to be used elsewhere, such as providing the personnel for the new aircraft carriers.

If this is the case, then Mr Hammond’s attitude puts him at odds with the views of senior serving officers such as General Sir Nick Carter, the current Army chief, who warned in a speech at the think tank Chatham House this week that the country had to be prepared to put “boots on the ground” if it wanted to provide an effective deterrence against acts of aggression by our enemies.

Whether Mr Hammond gets his way is likely to depend on the outcome of the national security capabilities review that is being undertaken by Mark Sedwill, the recently appointed National Security Adviser.

As a former Nato ambassador to Afghanistan, Mr Sedwill understands the importance of maintaining a strong army. And he is likely to receive strong backing from Sir Michael, who has made it clear to his colleagues that he has no desire to see any further cuts to our military capabilities.

Otherwise, the Government’s offer to guarantee the security of Europe could turn out to be nothing more than an empty promise.