DANIEL HANNAN: We must not sell Britain's fishermen as the price of being allowed to join the new EU defence pact

• e-mail

We should be willing to contribute to the defence of our European allies. But we should in no circumstances pay for the privilege. On the contrary, the EU should be asking what it can do for us in return.

A row has been bubbling on for months about whether British defence companies will be allowed to bid for contracts from a new EU €150 billion fund.

Brussels argues that, if it wants access, Britain must sign a defence and security pact with the EU. But to sign such a pact, we must first agree to give European (in this instance, largely French) vessels access to our fishing waters.

The EU, in other words, is acting as though it is bestowing a favour rather than asking for one.

Let's spell something out. We are not directly threatened by Russian troops. Yes, Vladimir Putin is a dangerous tyrant who has inflicted unspeakable cruelties both on Russian dissidents and on Ukrainians. He has ordered murders on British soil, violated our airspace and almost certainly sanctioned cyber-attacks against us.

But there is no realistic scenario where Russian soldiers will be massed in anger across the Channel.

A common European defence, from a British point of view, will thus be like the Common Fisheries Policy. For reasons of geography, we will always be putting in a lot more than we take out.

Now, there are perfectly good arguments for deploying British forces to defend Poland or Finland. These countries are our friends. And, in any case, we should prefer a world where borders are not altered by force, and where democracies prevail over dictatorships.

A row has been bubbling on for months about whether British defence companies will be allowed to bid for contracts from a new EU €150 billion fund

Brussels argues that, if it wants access, Britain must sign a defence and security pact with the EU. But to sign such a pact, we must first agree to give European (in this instance, largely French) vessels access to our fishing waters

'I'm learning,' said the EU's foreign minister, Kaja Kallas (pictured), a couple of weeks ago, 'that fish to the French are very important'

But we should not imagine that we will be calling, in return, for Polish or Finnish troops to defend our islands.

'Obviously EU taxpayers' money cannot go simply into British companies,' said Germany's UK ambassador, Miguel Berger, last month.

It was a telling statement, and a reminder of the protectionism that drove many of us to vote Leave.

British taxpayers' money goes to EU companies all the time, and rightly so when those companies make the most competitive bid.

But, never mind all that. The EU lets Norwegian, Albanian, Japanese and South Korean companies bid for contracts from that fund. It does so not as an act of charity, but because it wants the best kit with which to defend itself.

Why, then, exclude the European country with the strongest Armed Forces and best arms manufacturers?

Why push away one of only two nuclear powers in the region at precisely the moment when Europe is feeling the pressure of Russian nuclear blackmail?

Partly because there is still a lingering resentment of the 2016 Brexit vote, a desire to rub Britain's nose in it, however much doing so damages the EU.

Mainly, though, because France wants continued access to the richest fishing grounds in the region.

Incredibly, this pettiness prevails even at the height of Putinite revanchism – to the undisguised alarm of some of the EU's more easterly members.

Vladimir Putin is a dangerous tyrant who has inflicted unspeakable cruelties both on Russian dissidents and on Ukrainians

Russia guided aerial bombs towards the residential neighbourhood of Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, yesterday. A 69-year-old woman was killed and 26 others injured

'I'm learning,' said the EU's foreign minister, Kaja Kallas, a couple of weeks ago, 'that fish to the French are very important.'

Ms Kallas was previously the prime minister of Estonia, where Britain has a full brigade on standby in the event of further Russian aggression.

'I think the UK is a very important defence and security partner, it's the most logical defence and security partner that we have and it is a beneficial relationship for both sides,' she added in a different interview.

Ms Kallas knows that Estonia was the scene of the only direct clash between British forces and the Red Army, when the Royal Navy intervened against Bolsheviks at the end of the First World War.

Eleven British seamen were buried in Estonia, their graves kept hidden and tended by local patriots throughout the long years of Soviet occupation.

The Estonian Naval Jack is modelled on our own flag in recognition.

Given the immediacy of the threat to her homeland, Ms Kallas is incredulous at the idea of pushing Britain away over a row about fishing quotas.

Yet it seems that Sir Keir Starmer is prepared to give the EU what it wants, namely a continuation of its existing access rights – which, while around 75 per cent of what they were when we were EU members, are still a great deal more than we are under any moral or legal obligation to concede.

The argument that one hears from Labour apologists, off the record, is that fishing is a much smaller industry than defence.

Well, yes, but it would be a far bigger industry if we exercised our full rights out to 200 miles or the median line, as allowed under maritime law.

The argument that one hears from Labour apologists, off the record, is that fishing is a much smaller industry than defence

Read More

DAN HODGES: Sir Keir, you're walking into a political firestorm

Iceland exercises its full rights, and has become one of the richest countries in the world on the back of it – precisely because it was determined not to join the EU. We could similarly revive Grimsby and other North Sea towns if we were prepared to treat our waters as the great renewable resource they used to be before 1973.

In any case, we should not get too excited about that defence fund.

When we look at the small print, we see that the plan is to 'raise up to €150 billion on the capital markets' between now and 2030, and then offer it to the member states as soft loans. Next to the standing national defence budgets, this is not a huge sum. But the real point is that we should not sacrifice our fishermen for the sake of being allowed to do the EU a favour.

For decades, we have placed our Armed Forces at the disposal of our European allies and received nothing in return. I am not suggesting that we should go full Trump and demand resources in return. But I think a little recognition might be in order.

Many of our deployments are unnoticed. Most people are aware that we are supporting Estonia.

But how many people know that the RAF acts, in effect, as Romania's air force, responding when Russia buzzes its airspace?

During the Brexit disengagement talks, Jeremy Hunt, then the foreign secretary, was astonished to find that these deployments did not translate into any tangible gratitude.

Perhaps it is time to become a little more transactional. Yes, we have an interest in the stability and prosperity of Europe. Yes, we wish our allies well.

Even without a fisheries concession, the question we should be asking is what the EU is prepared to put on the table in exchange for our participation, argues Daniel Hannan

But it does not follow that we should reverse decades of British policy and join an EU-led defence pact.

I can't help feeling that we are being played here.

If the EU drops, or at least moderates, its demands on fisheries, that will then be portrayed as a victory, as though being allowed to join a defence pact is a great boon to us.

But, in diplomatic parlance, we are not the 'demandeurs' here. In other words, we are not the ones asking for a concession.

Even without a fisheries concession, the question we should be asking is what the EU is prepared to put on the table in exchange for our participation.

I'd settle for a lifting of all goods checks in Northern Ireland. We don't need cash payments.

We are allies, after all.