On the Boles proposals

On the Boles proposals

There is an essay by Nick Boles, published on demos website that argues to reframe Starmer’s EU reset by offering to extend Britain’s nuclear umbrella in exchange for a single market in goods. It is claimed this is circulating within government.

It has caused much excitement by the rejoin opposing press and its followers in the Labour Party. It has also been noted by some of the rejoin commentators as an item of hope.

It’s nonsense.

This proposal fails to recognise that, Starmer’s reset has failed, mostly through lack of ambition on the British side. This proposal is similar to the reset agreement made in May 25 which set an agenda, including an enhanced defence agreement. Not one single item of the reset has been finalised.

 The one disappointment I have in Starmer being replaced is that the learning process on the subject of EU relations within the government has been set back. I believe the Starmer speech on 1st May, together with the House of Commons Select Committee report and the Fabian Society’s “Pressing Reset” shows that large elements of labour we’re ready to learn a new lesson.

What needs to be understood is that the European Union will not make an agreement that leaves a third country in a better position than either current members or aspirant members and it considers the single market as indivisible.

The proposal has the benefit to Labour’s Atlanticists that it embeds Britains commitment to the US designed strategic nuclear deterrent, and its proposed extension, the air based so called tactical nuclear weapons in exchange for minimal concessions from the EU. I say, minimal, splitting the single market which is what is proposed is not minimal,  but if the UK is making the offer, it should be able to get more than a single market for goods, even if only seen from the nation of shopkeeper’s accountant’s lense.

The country needs a better deal on all three dimensions of the issue, defence, trade and international solidarity.

Labour’s NPF also shows a continuation of this lack of ambition, and a failure to learn from the failed two years of the Reset.

Rejoining the EU could be the easiest deal in the world if we just forget what we once had and embrace the economic benefits, the opportunity for deeper social relationships between our peoples, and the continued development of a force for peace, democracy and human rights.

This needs ambition and I am very unclear that Burnham’s government is ready for this.

Those of us that want to rejoin need to push harder and articulate achievable goals. The UK should join the single market now, and Labour should put that a Labour Government will seek to rejoin the EU in its next manifesto.

The Russian Ukraine border Sergey Bystro, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons …

John Healey at GMB26

the platform at gmb26 in the blackpool wintergardens

Congress was addressed by John Healey MP, the Secretary oi State for Defence, I looked for the text of the speech on Labour and the gov.uk site, but could not find it. It was however reported in the Morning Star and at the BBC, also Google AI perspectives says,

“John Healey MP used his speech at the GMB Union Congress in June 2026 to announce plans to unashamedly prioritize British companies and jobs in future defence spending.

This speech, like the whole conference was published on the GMB video feed. Possibly the key push within the new plans is that by prioritising British firms, they claim the money works twice, firstly by buying weapons to secure the UK, but secondly by investing in UK industries and workers. There are some who argue that defence investment is a dead investment as there is no, or little, investment multiplier effect, but they can’t argue that there is no multiplier effect from spend on labour costs. Actually the idea that defence industry investment has no civil multiplier effect seems to be extraordinarily weak.

Healey name checked the defence factories that the GMB organises and of course, defended the need for Trident, and rather strangely, declared the desire to see the Union Jack on top of every weapon. (Very Dr. Strangelove). This strange patriotism avoids talking about the UK’s dependence on US arms industry and the current unreliability of the United States as a provider; it also may make co-operation with Europe and the EU member states more difficult as the UK’s failure to join the EU SAFE programme, and the continued conversations about the EU’s industrial accelerator Act, aka the “Made in Europe” proposals shows.

What this hubris also fails to address is that developing some of these weapons is now beyond the UK alone, we need allies and that today involves a choice. 

I had written a piece on defence, and defence sovereignty earlier in the year.

Two days later, Healey and his No 2, Al Cairns resigned  from Government, I posted a video of their resignation statements in my blog, …

On defence sovereignty

a missile being launched from underwater by AI

James Schneider is in the ‘Statesman writing on Defence. This article is published with a tag line of, “Military insiders are trying to bully the government into dependency on an erratic United States”. I comment on the his arguments, and look at views expressed by other military commentators as to the sense of the UK’s US centric procurement policies and look at Kaldor and Cooper’s paper arguing that social resilience is a defence policy too.

Schneider argues correctly, but not with originality, that expenditure targets are not a strategy. A strategy must consider purpose, weapons and their source. He points out that George Robertson, a recent critic of the financial targets, is connected to and a long time supporter of the US Military Industrial complex. While Defence Secretary, he established the now bi-partisan position that the UK would develop an expeditionary capability designed to work in the context of “allies” i.e. a US led NATO. Robertson then went on to serve as NATO’s General Secretary. His criticisms of the Labour Government’s defence policies and appetite to fund them is repeated in an article in the Spectator written by John Foreman, who was formerly Britain’s defence attaché in Moscow and before that, Britain’s defence attaché in Kyiv.

The problem is that under Trump, the US is clearly an unreliable ally to the UK & Europe.

This opinion is the major assumption in Kaldor & Cooper’s paper, Organised Irresponsibility, where they argue that the Strategic Defence Review, is based on the assumption that NATO is the cornerstone of UK defence policy and that it double down on using the US as its major supplier focusing on expensive weapon systems which have been shown to be extremely vulnerable in Ukraine.

Does the reliance in US weapons systems and infrastructure jeopardise the UK’s defence capability. Schneider questions the availability of both the F35s, used on the aircraft carriers and for European operations and that of the nuclear deterrent. Further evidence is obliquely provided by Perun, an open source intelligence commentator, in a video entitled, “Arming Europe Without US Weapons?“, where he suggests in his imaginary European military, by their omission, that the UK’s exquisite weapons are all too US dependent.

Kaldor and Cooper make two additional arguments. The first that the SDR’s arguments and the government adoption of buying more US weapons limits European Co-operation, and they sub-title their conclusion, “Welfare is Resilience”.

I was reminded at a seminar yesterday, that some defence thinkers are trying to prepare the UK for the view that modern wars are between societies and that everyone needs to contribute. The SDR recognises, and observing Ukraine’s resistance, shows that, yet again, modern wars are likely to be conducted by the whole of society. Additionally, the new cold war is conducted in the grey zone, to which the best defence is a well informed and committed society.

A country at the end of fourteen years of austerity, with a corrupt media, and a public social wage commitment the lowest in Europe is not going to support enhanced defence expenditure at the expense of increased wages and diminishing social security.  The second part of Robertson’s statement is that the welfare bill is too high and that It needs to be cut in order to fund defence; this was days before we discover that the HMG undershot its borrowing projections by £700m.

The UK can’t have an impoverished people and a well funded military, even if the current weapons procurement proposals made sense. A defence policy/strategy needs to be about purpose, then weapons and their cost. The country also needs that its population thinks its worth defending.

Social justice & equality are defence projects too. …

The EU Hokey Cokey

dancers in a european square

I watched the first day of the EU UK parliamentary partnership assembly. The first session was on general issues & trade and the second on defence. I made some notes which you can read overleaf. Following the agenda of the meeting, I talk of Trade and Defence in two parts. Throughout, I question the UK's half hearted commitment. Use the read more button to see the whole article. ...

Munich 2025, peace in our time

Munich 2025, peace in our time

The last week has signified the death knell of NATO. The ninety minute phone call between Trump and Putin signifies the road to a 21st century Hitler Stalin pact. The Trump administration's proposals that the USA and Russia make peace in Ukraine without Ukraine being present at the table and mandating European NATO to provide peacekeeping forces are a return great power politics unrestrained by the rule of law. For more press the button ....

National Service, the Tories are not fit custodians of the military

National Service, the Tories are not fit custodians of the military

It’s day four of the 2024 general election. In previous elections, I have written various think pieces about Labour’s offer, its manifesto and made some criticisms of Tory attack lines. I don’t know what I’ll be doing this time, as I have a number of blog articles stuck in production hell, which may have to wait until after the election.

I just wanted to comment on Rishi Sunak’s promise to reintroduce national service. This would seem not to be designed as part of an effective defence strategy as some have argued for (or on Medium). There are others, such as Nadia Whittome and David Osland who have eloquently pointed out the national service is not what young people need, what is needed his decent jobs, free education, an affordable home and a decent standard of living.

One dimension I would like to add, to raise is that the Tories are not fit custodians of the British military, particularly the British Army. Cameron’s cuts slashed NCO wages and the Army is struggling to recruit to fill the current underwhelming cadre plans; the Army is the smallest it’s been since the Napoleonic Wars. It’s not capable of meeting realistic future demands in the defence sphere, asking them to train/supervise unwilling teenagers is just more of the Tories fantasy solutions design.

Antisocial behaviour and youth criminality are complex issues; Tory sloganeering is no help and they have proven they are not suitable custodians of the armed forces. …

Brexit, armaments and defence

the flags at the Berlaymont

Reasons that Brexit was a mistake number, well I lost count but the Davis Downside Dossier has the count at 1788. The FT has run an article reporting on the EU’s rejuvenated attempts move towards a defence union. For years now it has been working on common procurement chains and now is seeking to ensure security of supply, which is primarily likely to cause substitution of US weapons with indigenous European weapons but one piece of collateral damage will be the UK’s arms industry ability to supply to EU member states.

The FT article implies that the single market will be extended to defence supply. There are two impacts on this policy. One of them being the exposure of the lack of ambition of Labours plans to ”Fix Brexit”, agriculture, science, touring artists, and a free movement of consultants & professionals won’t be enough and Labour’s plans to trade our defence capability for single market opt-outs will look much less attractive to the European Union.

The second impact will be on BAE’s share price, which has done quite well this year.

The Ukraine War has been good for some businesses.It all goes to show that there’s a need to examine how the UK and Europe defends itself, if there is a sensible role for NATO as opposed to an EU institution or competency and to question whether the global i.e. the non-exclusively European nature of the UK’s warplane procurement plans are actually as effective as we need.

 …