Britain’s new defence spending blueprint and the European Union’s rearmament drive point in the same direction. They may still end up pulling against each other.
Last week, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer stood before workers at Malloy Aeronautics in Berkshire and made the case for the biggest shift in British defence spending in a generation. “We are already delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the 1980s,” he said, “£270 billion over the Spending Review period.”
A short while later, his Defence Investment Plan (DIP) landed in full. It proposes £298bn (€349bn) over four years, a 27 per cent real-terms increase by 2029/30. It also outlines a trajectory toward 2.7 per cent of GDP by 2030 and 3.5 per cent by 2035.
A shared diagnosis, a divided prescription
The timing was no accident. Sir Keir leaves office within weeks. The European Union’s own rearmament drive, built around its Readiness 2030 White Paper, the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) regulation, the European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP) regulation, and the Defence Readiness Omnibus, is already reshaping how the continent buys, builds, and pays for weapons. The question is whether Britain’s plan and Europe’s rearmament drive complement each other or collide.
Sir Keir’s speech left little doubt about his strategic reading before this week’s NATO summit. “European nations must take primary responsibility for their own defence,” he said, while insisting this was “not to the exclusion of the US, but to strengthen the transatlantic alliance.” The EU’s White Paper for European Defence Readiness 2030 reaches a near-identical conclusion: Europe must close its own capability gaps, fast, and stop relying on American industrial and military capacity as a backstop.
You might be interested
Both documents name the same priority areas: munitions, air and missile defence, drones and autonomous systems, cyber and electronic warfare, space, and strategic infrastructure. The convergence is striking. It is also, in industrial and legal terms, a problem.
The DIP commits £11.1bn to munitions and weapons. The EU White Paper, backed by the SAFE regulation’s joint procurement framework, identifies ammunition and missiles as its most urgent capability gap. Both will draw on the same energetics, explosives, rocket motors, fuzes, and production tooling. European munitions factories are already running near capacity in support of Ukraine. Adding two large, simultaneous procurement surges to that pressure will strain supply chains that took decades to hollow out and cannot be rebuilt overnight.
Where the plans directly collide
The fiercest competition will be in four areas. First, munitions. Second, integrated air and missile defence: both the DIP’s £790m homeland protection envelope and the EU’s parallel push under SAFE’s collective-buying provisions will chase the same interceptors, radars, and command-and-control systems.
We have made tough choices, to stop doing things which were designed for another age, and invest in capabilities fit for the next war, not the last one.
— Dan Jarvis, UK’s defence secretary
Third, drones: the DIP’s £5bn-plus autonomous-systems commitment and the EU’s European Drone Defence Initiative target the same sensors, datalinks, batteries, and AI software. Fourth, skilled labour: aerospace, shipbuilding, electronics, cyber, and munitions workers are in short supply across the continent, and both plans explicitly treat workforce expansion as a priority.
Defence Secretary Dan Jarvis acknowledged the scale of the internal challenge in the DIP’s foreword. “Increased spending is only half the story,” he wrote. “We have made tough choices, to stop doing things which were designed for another age, and invest in capabilities fit for the next war, not the last one.”
Where are the engineers?
That logic applies equally at the European level: the continent is not simply spending more, it is trying to restructure an industrial base that atrophied for thirty years, and doing so with new legislative tools designed to speed that restructuring up.
The Defence Readiness Omnibus, the Commission’s package to remove regulatory obstacles, streamline permitting, and harmonise defence-market rules across member states, means the EU side is not only spending faster but legislating faster. That matters for British firms: a more integrated, more legally coherent EU defence market is harder to sell into from the outside, not easier.
We are already delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the 1980s.
— Sir Keir Starmer, outgoing British Prime Minister
The DIP’s cyber and space envelopes, £2.5bn and £3.2bn respectively, overlap with EU investments in the European Space Shield and collective cyber resilience. Here the competition is less for physical production capacity than for scarce specialists and high-end semiconductor and software supply. Both agendas want the same engineers. Neither has a clear plan to conjure them from thin air.
The deepest structural tension is not in capabilities but in law. The SAFE regulation is designed to channel joint borrowing and collective buying toward EU-linked suppliers. The EDIP regulation reinforces that logic with direct incentives for companies that manufacture inside the EU. The Defence Readiness Omnibus adds a third layer, harmonising national rules so that EU member states find it easier to buy together and faster. None of these instruments were designed with the United Kingdom in mind.
The procurement fault line
Post-Brexit Britain sits in an awkward position: too large and too capable to be ignored, but outside the legal and financial architecture that now governs European defence procurement. UK firms that supply components to European programmes may find themselves systematically disadvantaged under EDIP’s eligibility criteria unless a specific third-country participation agreement is negotiated.
The DIP’s new £50bn Defence Export Facility is partly a response to this risk. Sir Keir described it as “the largest expansion of UK Export Finance support in its 100-year history”. It is an attempt to keep British industry competitive in a market that is quietly reorganising around EU membership.
The DIP does gesture toward bilateral workarounds. Sir Keir cited joint development of deep precision-strike weapons with Germany, frigate construction with Norway to hunt Russian submarines, and the £400m UK contribution to the Multilateral Defence Mechanism. These are real commitments. But they are bilateral or minilateral arrangements, not a systematic solution to the access problem created by SAFE, EDIP, and the Omnibus.
Partners, or competitors? A scorecard
Not everything is rivalry. The list below captures where the two agendas are likely to work together and where they are likely to work against each other.
Where cooperation is most plausible:
- Drones and autonomous systems: the EU’s European Drone Defence Initiative and the DIP’s £5bn-plus autonomous-systems programme point in the same technological direction, with scope for shared standards and interoperable supply chains.
- Space and satellite communications: the EU’s European Space Shield and the DIP’s £2.3bn satellite-communications envelope can align around resilience and protected data links.
- Cyber, AI, and electronic warfare: both plans prioritise these areas, creating scope for shared research standards and industrial partnerships outside the strictest EDIP eligibility rules.
- Ukraine support: both frameworks treat Ukrainian defence capacity as a core interest, making cooperation on training, replenishment, and industrial sustainment likely, even if production-line competition persists.
Where rivalry is most likely:
- Munitions and missiles: the most direct competition, for shells, explosives, energetics, rocket motors, and fuzes, because both plans explicitly treat this as their most urgent priority, and SAFE’s joint procurement rules will steer EU demand inward.
- Integrated air and missile defence: the same interceptors, radars, and command-and-control systems are on both shopping lists simultaneously, and EDIP incentives will favour EU-based producers.
- Skilled workers: aerospace, shipbuilding, electronics, cyber, and munitions labour markets overlap entirely, so wage pressure and recruitment competition are near-certain.
- Industrial location and investment: both sides are offering incentives to attract factories and capital, and the Defence Readiness Omnibus makes the EU side faster and more legally coherent in doing so.
- Procurement access: SAFE and EDIP are designed to steer demand toward EU-linked suppliers, which may systematically disadvantage UK firms without a dedicated participation agreement.
A laggard’s late sprint?
The DIP’s submarine and nuclear programmes, £63.6bn for the Defence Nuclear Enterprise alone, are largely parallel to EU priorities rather than directly competitive. The EU has no collective nuclear programme and no submarine-building ambition at the European level. But even here, the UK’s demand for naval engineers, specialist steel, propulsion systems, and systems-integration talent will ripple through a European industrial base that France, Germany, and others are also trying to expand under the Omnibus’s streamlined permitting rules.
If you want to be a global player, you need to back up your diplomacy with force.
— Radosław Sikorski, Poland’s foreign minister
A post-Brexit Britain sits at an uncomfortable place. Poland’s Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski put it bluntly. “If you want to be a global player, you need to back up your diplomacy with force,” he told the Telegraph. “Either you pay for it or it will wane. Britain has unique convening power, a global outlook, first-class intelligence and all that. But, when push comes to shove, you either have the ships to send to the Gulf or the brigades to deploy to Ukraine, or you don’t.”
The DIP is, in part, a response to that critique. But it arrives late, and with gaps. The BBC reported that only £10.3bn of the £15bn spending increase has been formally identified; the remaining £4.7bn must be found at the next budget. The DIP also requires £10.7bn in efficiency savings by 2030, with limited detail on how they will be achieved.
Imminent danger
Sir Richard Barrons, one of the three authors of the Strategic Defence Review, was direct at the defence select committee: “For me, by far the most dangerous consequence of the year’s delay is that the Prime Minister says Russia could attack Nato by 2030. And we essentially lost a year of mobilising for that, and that is profoundly dangerous.”
A Burnham government may find it easier to frame higher defence spending as an industrial and regional-jobs policy, given his political roots in the northern English economy, than as a conventional security argument. Whether that translates into the hard fiscal choices needed to close the £4.7bn gap, hit 3 per cent of GDP in the next Parliament, and negotiate a credible third-country participation route into SAFE and EDIP, remains an open question.
In Europe, the deeper story is not simply that Britain has at last begun to spend again. It is that Brussels is hardening a legal and financial framework for defence through SAFE, EDIP, and the Defence Readiness Omnibus, and doing so with a clearer sense of industrial direction than London can yet match. The contest is therefore not only over missiles, drones, and engineers. It is over the rules that decide who may sell, who may co-produce, and who may belong to the European defence market.
