The new government views the European Political Community as a stalking horse for a bilateral deal with the EU that meaningfully deepens operational security. This is a mistake, argues Will Cooling
One of the visible signs that the election caught everyone within the former government by surprise is how busy the international calendar has been. Not only did Sunak have to abandon the campaign trail for a meeting of the G7 and the state visit of the Japanese Emperor, but his successor will have attended two major international summits in as many weeks since becoming Prime Minister.
Last week Sir Keir Starmer travelled to America to celebrate Nato’s 75th Birthday while this Thursday will see representatives from across Europe come to Britain for a meeting of a much newer organisation, the European Political Community (EPC). The brainchild of Emmanual Macron, back before his presidency experienced brain death, the EPC seeks to bring together the European Union (EU) and other European countries to tackle the security threats they all face. That Britain gets to host its fourth meeting gives Starmer and his new foreign secretary a golden opportunity to push for their desired reset of Britain’s relationship with the EU.
It is worth noting, however, that David Lammy and those around him don’t see the EPC as anything more than a stalking horse. What they really want is a bilateral deal with the EU that meaningfully deepens the operational relationship between the two sides on security. This has predictably led to cries from some that Brexit will be betrayed, but it was Conservatives who created the structure that has enabled Labour to do this. Liz Truss agreed to join the EPC and Rishi Sunak worked with the French to sketch out the type of areas it could work on.
As a childish gesture, the price Tory Brexiteers demanded for this engagement was the removal of any EU iconography in EPC meetings, as if what flag was flown or anthem sung changed the fundamental orientation of the meeting. It should have been clear to all concerned that if you concede the need for Britain and Europe to have a deeper security partnership than what is already provided by Nato, you are conceding the need for Britain to more closely align with the EU.
But it is not just Brexiteers who should bemoan the EPC, or whatever agreement Starmer and Lammy can cook up with their European counterparts. The security of Europe clearly is more endangered than at any point since the fall of the Berlin Wall, not least because America’s commitment has never been so much in doubt. But the only body that can corral European nations into organising for their collective defence is the EU.
There is no shortage of money or people on the continent, with its combined population and economy dwarfing that of Russia. But there is a lack of clarity about what Europe’s foreign policy is meant to be and a lack of coordination in the development and deployment of military resources. The former creates incoherence, and the latter leads to inefficiencies.
Britain getting more involved in intra-European discussions will only add to this confusion and division. We can play a friendly and supportive role, but we need to make clear that only Europe can lead on the defence of Europe. This is especially important, as the Europeans are not the only friends of ours who are under threat and have reason to fear the Americans may not help them. We are the only nation other than the Americans who can plausibly assist those Commonwealth nations who increasingly find themselves threatened by China or Middle Eastern allies threatened by Iran. We must prioritise what capacity we have to be this global backstop for as long as America cannot be relied upon. And that means we must disengage from the minutiae of European security.
Will Cooling writes about politics and pop culture at It Could Be Said substack