Japan has submitted an official application to participate in the SAFE defense procurement program, the EU’s €150 billion defense investment instrument.
This was reported by Ukrinform with reference to a briefing by European Commission spokesman Tom Rainier.
“Turkey and South Korea have also expressed interest in starting bilateral negotiations on full association with SAFE. This also applies to Japan. I can confirm this today,” the spokesman said.
He reminded that after the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with Canada on joining SAFE, the next step for the EU will be to consider the applications of South Korea and Turkey.
Regarding Japan’s chances of concluding a SAFE agreement given its late application, the spokesperson noted that one should be careful with predictions. The European Commission has received 19 national plans from EU member states and is currently evaluating them.
The preliminary allocation for each member state that has applied is as follows:
The SAFE defense procurement program provides up to €150 billion in long-term loans to requesting EU member states for investment in defense capabilities.
The initiative has become the first pillar of a large-scale European rearmament plan, which aims to invest more than €800 billion in defense spending across all EU member states by 2030.
Production of Oncilla armored vehicles. Poland. Source: MISTA
One of the key conditions for participation in the program is restrictions on the origin of components. According to the rules, no more than 35% of the cost of components can be accounted for by products from outside the European Economic Area or Ukraine.
Ukraine and the countries of the European Economic Area are involved on equal terms with EU member states. This includes the right to participate in joint procurement and the ability to offer their own products for procurement. But it does not provide direct access to SAFE loans.
15 EU member states also included support for Ukraine in their applications. Spain, Poland and Croatia have already publicly announced cooperation with Ukraine under this mechanism.
In particular, Spain announced that it would use €215 million from its application to purchase anti-drone systems, radars, and other defense technologies for Ukraine.
More about Ukraine’s participation in European rearmament projects in the issue of the ‘Zbroya’ project, created jointly with the Ukrainian Council of Defence Industry, “EuropeWill Buy Weapons from Ukraine. Global Rearmament for 150 Billion”.
What I want to know is, who went through these numbers and though "Hmmm... Slovakia is getting short-changed. They are due one more Euro. There, fixed."
Quality of life is about the same. I'm retired so the rather horrible working conditions are a moot point for me.
My main complaint about Denmark, as pampered a life as it was compared to most other places in the world, is that it was a pretty boring country. Japan is anything but.
The Nordic countries are rather boring because the climate is quite cold and the landscape is rugged. It's just often a tiny bit nasty outside, a frigid environment. Xou tend to cozy up at home, the population is not that big,
That's awesome to me. I love scandinavia, Iceland and Norway.
The culture is not about everyone flowing outside at night with a vibrant street life.
Yeah it's more about familiar community, I like that.
Apparently it should be the state’s responsibility to provide excitement. It’s odd that people go as tourists to enjoy all kinds of countries, so maybe it’s actually not the countries that’s the issue here? Maybe, just maybe it’s the individuals 😅
Edgy. Did you just discover the concept of culture, but somehow missed the fact that not every country is the same in terms of climate and geography? Or the fact these things influence each other?
Yes, if most of the time it’s cold outside with high humidity, rain or snow, and high winds, on top of rugged terrain, people won’t have a culture where they go outside to sit on the street cafes every evening.
Well, the thing is still that people like different things, and street cafes are not everyone’s cup of tea. A lot of people seem to enjoy an all inclusive beach vacation, something I find to be the most boring experience you can have. People enjoy different things.
Btw, love cafes, but also love having a cup of coffee by myself in the outdoors.
I think he means things to do for fun. Unless you really like nature, there's not much to do. Oslo isn't exactly bursting with culture, vitality and things to do compared to London, New York, Tokyo, Rome, etc. etc.
I will say that in the summer there is a very strong festival tradition in Norway that actually brings quite a few big international artists so there is that.
Also another nice thing about Norway is that many of those exciting cities I just mentioned are a short flight away for vacation, then you can come back to safe and boring Norway when you're done partying.
The question was why Denmark was being described as a boring country. The follow-up was that that doesn't sound interesting and that apparently living in a given country should give me fulfillment, possibly from the state, by virtue of living here.
I'm not sure why me offering up an answer to the first question means I need to address any follow-ups about my private life.
There's just not much happening looking at the country as a whole, same with Scandinavia + Finland in general. You have some bigger cities like Copenhagen, Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki or Gothenburg which are pretty much comparable to many european cities. Other than that it's mostly countryside, with Denmark being probably the most boring because most of it is farmland, but at least there's Legoland in Billund.
The further north you go, the more nature there is, mountains, fjords, lakes, rivers, forests and bogs, some places, especially in Norway have some very dramatic landscapes, Trollveggen being a good example.
Most of that nature is also very sparsely populated, so unless you like winter sports and nature without people, the area can feel kind of boring and Denmark doesn't even have that, just beaches that are cold and windy, often rainy for much of the year and people that talk funny.
At least most of it is very pretty to look at. You know when you choose to create a flat world in Minecraft? I'm fairy certain that's how Denmark was created.
The Mountain of Heavens in Denmark is named after Nordic mythology's tallest mountain in the realm of the Gods. It's a hill 147m above sea level. On it stands the towering structure The Tower of Heavens. At a paltry 25m. Even the national anthem is full of "No really, our land isn't flat at all".
I did when I first moved here. The company I worked at opened a branch in Japan and via the CoE I got a highly skilled professional work visa and from there I became a permanent resident after just a year.
The bureaucracy is ridiculous in Japan, so I thank my lucky stars the company handled the majority of it.
I was on a conversational level before I moved, and am fairly fluent in everything outside of kanji now. That alone does most of the work for getting along with locals. I live in a quiet neighborhood which is also made up of about 20% expats, so I'm no peculiar unicorn. I am when I visit the extremely rural areas though.
And honestly, Danes are sorta similar to the Japanese, in a weird way. There isn't that big of a gap when you try to connect.
Havent lived in Japan but been there for vacation. I was in Tokyo in September and the humidity I experienced was the worst in my life, you couldnt stand outside.
It will be interesting to see how much their fee will be as Japan has a solid MIC. It’ll most definitely be higher then Canada but it’s unlikely to be at the level of the EU’s request of the UK
A sane explanation of the UK - EU SAFE negotiations, to counteract the masses of British and French people blaming each other for nonsense.
SAFE is the provision of cheap loans to EU countries, which can be used by the EU nations receiving money (which is not all of them, the list is here) to buy military equipment. One condition of the program is that...
procurement contracts must ensure that no more than 35% of component costs originate from outside the EU, EEA-EFTA, or Ukraine.
There is not and was never any prospect that the UK would receive loan money from the EU. What the negotiations were about was increasing that 35% limit. Currently, for example, an EU recipient of SAFE money couldn't use it to buy Meteor missiles, as ~40% of them is made in the UK. The goal was to increase the limit so that more of the products of the UK industry were eligible for purchase with SAFE money.
The negotiations failed fundamentally just because the EU and UK couldn't agree a price for that limit increase. That's it. The EU of course wants a high price because sales going to UK industry will likely reduce sales to EU industries. The UK wants a low price because it needs to be sure that it actually gets a return on its investment. The fact that no agreement could be made implies that the EU has more confidence in the UKs ability to make sales to major SAFE recipients than HMG.
Does it actually matter? Probably not. Ultimately as I say there's few major arms sales in the works to major SAFE recipients. The main deals are for Type 31 frigates to Sweden or Denmark, neither of whom are getting consequential amounts of funding. For other equipment - like Meteor - people are still going to buy and ultimately money is fungible. They can just use SAFE funds for eligible purchases and ordinary funding for our kit.
Unfortunately this is being presented by some British people as evidence of antagonism towards the UK by the EU, and by some Europeans as evidence of Britain trying to have its cake and eat it. This literally is just a disagreement over price that's going to have likely close to no impact on procurement or relations. Everyone just relax, please.
These sorts of posts need to be auto-stuck to any news containing "UK" and "SAFE" in the same sentence... Or just when the program is mentioned on this sub.
I think it's actually pretty difficult to not view this as some form of antagonism towards the UK.
the UK is one of the most important countries when it comes to defence in Europe and has been for a very long time, it's taken defence seriously than a majority of EU countries (still not as serious as we should have taken it) it's been very vocal about defending Europe and has both a large millitary industry and large (for European states) millitary.
even after Brexit it has kept the same commitment to Europe, perhaps even a stronger one (mainly due to the situation in Ukraine), I don't mind the idea of an EU defence fund for EU nations but dangling the carrot for the UK and asking what is in reality a totally insane price is a bit of a slap in the face, especially when you are letting other very much not EU nations in for seemingly a lot more of a reasonable price.
It's pretty clear certain EU nations want to protect their own domestic industries (nothing actually wrong with that in reality) and are in many situations quite willing to escalate issues that should have been resolved years and years ago as a bit of a snub to the UK.
but as some people have said when this topic comes up the UK did not say "fuck you" to the EU, we left and we continue to be an extremely crucial ally, we work closely on science, millitary, industry and in a lot of other areas.
I don't mind the idea of an EU defence fund for EU nations but dangling the carrot for the UK and asking what is in reality a totally insane price is a bit of a slap in the face,
Literally everyone opens negotiations with a price that makes the other party go "haha nope". This is just normal. The UKs opening offer was also an obviously too low figure.
I know you think they do but that is a very boring Trump esque 'art of the deal' tactic that will generally get you scoffed at and make other people quite angry when it comes to negotiating things, especially when it comes to governmental things.
you might start a bit higher and justify it, see the slightly too low counter offer and try meet in the middle but coming in with something crazy high/low is just rude and dumb.
As I say, both party's opening offers were obviously unacceptable to the other side. If the EU was being rude and dumb with their ask, so was the UK with theirs.
Unless I'm wrong the UK made a counter offer, it wasn't an offer made at the same time, starting with such a high number basically sets the table for nothing good to happen
The EU was demanding €7 billion when Canada is only paying €10 million.
Right, but...
a) that's the negotiated fee, not the EUs opening offer to Canada. We don't know what that was.
b) the Canadian defence industry is nowhere near as powerful as the UKs, they're not even in the same ballpark.
It's very clear that you would defend the EU in any situation
I'm also defending the UK here but for some reason you're not complaining about that
Canada were offered a 10 million Euro entry free to join the programme. The UK was offered an entry fee of about 2 billion Euros (the initial offer was even higher). The ludicrously huge gulf between the UK and Canada's fee cannot be justified based on an economic argument.
Canada negotiated a 10 million Euro entry free. We do not know what the opening offer was. Regardless though, a huge difference is inevitable; the UKs military industry is far more developed than Canadas.
200 times greater? And the initial offer was over 4 billion! Are you seriously suggesting they thought our GDP and/or arms industry was 400 times greater?
I'm saying that they thought the impact that inclusion our arms industry could have on EU arms industry eclipsed the impact they thought Canadas would have. As to the price; as I say. 10million is the negotiated final price; we don't know what their opening offer to Canada was.
Well their final offer to us was about 2 billions euros, so again, is the UK 200 times more impactful than Canada? Canada's GDP is about 2.14 trillion versus 3.6 trillion for the UK, a factor of 1.7, so the GDP difference certainly does not justify anything. Canada's arms industry is doing well and is certainly not 200 times smaller than the UK's. Canada doesn't include arms exports to the US in the official figures, but it's estimated to be something like $3 billion on top of their $2 billion-ish of reported exports, so say $5 billion versus the Uk's $14 billion. Certainly a factor of 200 is way over the top.
They are facing a threat from the Russians, so getting one of Europe's nuclear armed countries, with a military that has a record of winning wars onside. Would seem to be very much in the EU's interests.
Instead they decided to attempt to extort money from the UK.
Which tells you the EU is not serious when it comes to defence.
It's almost like even after Brexit the UK has stayed wholly comitted to European defence and has been one of the few countries to take it seriously over the past many years (although not as much as we all should have) alongside being an ally of the EU
I'm talking about the antagonism during the decade prior to the referendum. People can pretend that Brexit appeared from nowhere and that it was all just the racist right wing complaining about foreigners all they want, but the officials at the EU were doing their bit to antagonise the British government for years.
What's also hilarious is EU peeps whose countries have done almost sweet fuck all to contribute to pan-European defence calling the UK unreliable when it's been one of the most consistent countries for decades.
We didn't tho. We played the partner who was threatening to leave with no intention of doing so. Then had nowhere else to turn when the EU called our bluff. It was a perfect example of how 'leadership' in this country under the tories, was practically non existent.
Why is France in there, but not Germany or the Netherlands?
And lol, why is Hungary on the list at all. They should not get a cent. Hungary would be the first country to switch to Putlers side if it comes to it. They are as anti-EU as it gets.
Both Germany and the Netherlands can borrow money cheaply on their own, taking out loans via the EU only really makes sense if the conditions are better.
The British government has rejected the European Commission’s request for its financial contribution to SAFE. According to British sources, the Commission had asked London to allocate between four and nearly seven billion euros (about 7.8 billion dollars) to the initiative.
the British side considered the requested amount far higher than what it intended to spend on the new European defense program. Statement quoted by the outlet said that London would only agree to deals that are beneficial for the United Kingdom and British industry, citing the British government, which emphasized that talks between London and Brussels are still ongoing.
The minister for EU relations, Nick Thomas-Symonds, said it was “disappointing” that talks had fallen through but insisted that the UK defence industry would still be able to participate in projects through Safe on third-country terms.
“While it is disappointing that we have not been able to conclude discussions on UK participation in the first round of Safe, the UK defence industry will still be able to participate in projects through Safe on third-country terms.
“Negotiations were carried out in good faith, but our position was always clear: we will only sign agreements that are in the national interest and provide value for money.”
Canada, Japan and SK are fully willing to pay an entry fee to access the fund.
Canada's total fee is in two-digit millions - hundreds of times less than that of the UK. Japan's estimated fee is not yet decided. The price tag rolled out for the UK was insurmountable compared to one of the countries that you mentioned, so there's that - the EU stated its price, however (un)justified it is, and the UK rejected. After rounds of negotiations regarding the price tag, both parties agreed that the possible geopolitical and security benefits aren't worth this sum, which indicates the lack of interest on both sides.
There are no victims here - only the lack of interest and incentives on both sides and diverging geopolitical views and affiliations.
I would expect that the UK stands to gain more from the deal than Canada since the UK has a much bigger defense industry. No clue whether that justifies the huge price difference or not between the two though.
It does seem weird. Either keep it EU or open it up but to take Canada for a couple million but demand billions from out closest non-EU ally smells fishy
The point is that Canada doesn't have much in terms of weapons for sale that are US-free enough to qualify for the deal, and the weapon systems they contribute to (e.g. the saab AEW uses a bombardier plane) don't really have alternatives.
UK, on the other hand has plenty weapon systems that; if elligible, could amount to tens of billions of sales. Some of these weapon systems compete with EU materials. So obviously, the EU was going to ask vastly more from the UK than from Canada.
You people are hilariously naive. You think that the EU is far too principled and perfect to ever do something with bad intentions. The EU literally referred to the Falkland islands as Las Malvinas in official documentation, even though 99.8% of Falkand islanders want to remain British. It's equivalent to referring to kyiv as Kiev in official documentation.
I am strongly in favour of co-operation and thought Brexit was a stupid idea that was dishonestly portrayed.
However, even I realised that asking for about 6 billion Euros was done knowing it was impossible for the UK to agree. Then asking for anything even close to the suggested 1% of that from Canada made sure that it reminded people of the realities here. The f at that this was justified by reference to a fair calculation that we can’t see may be a hint about what is happening. But why shouldn’t France do that if it helps French industry?
The equivalent might be someone putting a For Sale sign on a house. A person of one nationality asked how much and is told $1m, and is then shocked to see a person of a different nationality buying the house for a small fraction of that $1m. That might get criticism but is hardly impossible.
Hopefully this will once again underline that no one can afford to leave the EU unless most members want a country to leave.
But sure UK is the victim here, again.
France bad.
Did you... not read the articles you quoted in your own comment?
The entire reason the talks fell through, was because France used their position as an EU member state to insert a poison pill into the negotiations (something they are well within their right to do). They massively trumped up the fee to protect the French military-industrial complex from UK competition. Again they are well within their right to do this, but it was nonetheless pretty cynical.
France is doing the exact same thing Britain is doing: looking out for its own interests. I don't blame either of these countries for doing this. There's too much money involved.
In Brussels, Regnier said Tuesday the fee paid by Canada or any other country is based on the scale of “potential contracts that (each) third country industry will get.”
“There is a correction mechanism, so this will be reassessed in light of the amounts of contracts that the Canadian industry will get from its participation into SAFE,” Regnier said.“
We are following the same methodology for all potential third-country agreements that we’re negotiating under SAFE.”
The EU has asked the U.K. to pay between 4 and 6.5 billion euros, several times the size of Canada’s fee.
There’s no poison pill. The same framework is used to work out the fee for all 3rd country participants and there is a regulation mechanism to correct if the realised contracts differ from the forecast.
I'm struggling to understand the methodology that somehow arrived at the fee disparity we are seeing. I guess we will just have to wait and see how Canada's contribution gets corrected.
My guess is it’s because the UK defense industry is ten times the size of Canadas while also closer and already has more established and stable interconnection with the EU countries, so it is expected to see far more contracts.
Forecasts could also be way off for both Canada and the UK. 10 million € does sound very low, and the Canadians seem disappointed with what that spells for the potential for contracts from the programme.
uk probably has a far bigger military industry and will be able to win lots more contracts than Canada, a country without military ambition and no nations threatening them seriously (yet)
Because the UK was asked to contribute a ridiculously larger amount than other nations. That aren't even local to the region. UK being able to rearm is much more useful to the EU than a Japan who technically still can't have a standing army or Canada who half the world away, but here we are.
Because the UK was asked to contribute a ridiculously larger amount than other nations.
You're wrong, that's not the reason UK rejected it
I'm quoting him again but The British minister for relations with EU said
"Negotiations were carried out in good faith, but our position was always clear: we will only sign agreements that are in the national interest and provide value for money."
They refused the deal over National interests
And as he says, UK will still be able to participate in project without the fund, anyway.
They consider their position preferable.
UK being able to rearm is much more useful to the EU than a Japan
Third party contributors will benefit less anyway, since procurement contracts must ensure that no more than 35% of component costs originate from outside the EU, EEA-EFTA, or Ukraine.
So at least 65% of the funds will be invested in EU, EEA-EFTA or Ukraine.
UK being able to rearm is much more useful to the EU than a Japan who technically still can't have a standing army or Canada who half the world away, but here we are.
We absolutely need Japan and Canada, they are also close to Russia and we'll benefit from strenghtening our relationship with these countries against Russia.
Anyway, my point isn't to say UK bad, just that they are defending their interests, just like the EU.
UK citizens playing the victims, crying as soon as things don't go their way, is getting insanely boring to me, that's all.
The national interests is paying a price that they consider worthwhile given the expected return on their investment. It's just a disagreement over price, nothing more.
Well apparently HMG disagree or they'd have made a deal. That's fundamentally what's caused the lack of agreement; the UK thinks the price demanded won't give them a return (or perhaps that they'd get a better return by investing the money directly themselves)
I would like to hear a number, but can't find any.
Poland is getting something like 40 billion, France 16 billion. I wouldn't expect UK to get any less than 12 billion.
Eh? You're misunderstanding my friend. Those figures for Poland and France are the amounts of the loans that the SAFE program will give to those nations. The UK would get no loans; none whatsoever. Those loans can be used by Poland and France to buy military equipment provided that no more than 35% of the value of that equipment is produced outside the EU. What the UK was negotiating for was to raise that limit - for example so that Poland could use some of its 40 billion to buy Meteor missiles, which are 40% UK made.
Obviously the amount that would actually go to the UK would depend heavily on the sales it's industry managed to make to EU nations that were benefiting from SAFE loans. That's extremely difficult to assess, but we don't historically sell much to the major beneficiaries of SAFE so I'm not surprised at all by the failure to strike a deal.
The UK would get nothing. The UK was not attempting to join SAFE as a loan recipient. The €7 billion that the EU was demanding was simply for the privilege of allowing us to bid for contracts funded by the scheme.
Nah, because we know you and the EU. After we join well find out that just so happens most of the projects and kit we propose will be just outside of eligibility “shame, thanks for the cash though”
As per usual politics are getting in the way of European cooperation. I wish people would drop their stupid nationalistic egos and realise that Europe need to work as one in order to face current challenges.
UK did try, but was sent to pound sand due to political reasons. Paying the mandated billions-worth tribute while Canada gets to pay 16 million is both economically and politically unfeasible for the UK, so there's that: both parties agreed they don't need each other.
People really get all hot under the collar about this; literally the EU and UK just couldn't agree a price for participation.
Hey do you want to buy this? It costs X.
Sorry that's too much, how about Y?
Nope that's not enough, never mind.
That's all that happened, and everyone wants to paint it as either the evil EU trying to harm the UK or else the UK trying to have its cake and eat it.
UK offered to pay 200-300 millions which is ridiculously low, EU wants 4 to 6 billions which is ridiculously high. This is just typical negotiation game...
Man can you imagine ... The UK going to war for other European nations in WW2, being the last major European power standing against the Germans and not giving up, they basically gave up their entire empire for the good of the continent, just to be treated like shit in 2025 because they made one bad decision.
it's not that deep - EU countries want defence procurement money to flow to their own industry in order to build up a stronger defence industry
including the UK in the program would have led to a significant chunk of that money going to UK manufacturers instead of their own and the EU countries wanted to be compensated for that - it is a bit petty and I think the 2 billion they asked for in the end was a bit much, but it's standard industrial policy, it's not that deep
Canada/Japan aren't comparable, they would get a very small number of orders as part of the program
Both the Germans and Italians were desperate for peace with Britain at the outset of war. Hitler offered incredibly favourable terms to the British in order to get peace. He would respect the integrity of the British empire so long as the UK recognised Hitlers claims to Europe. The UK if it was only in the war for itself could have hashed out a peace treay that wouldve left it in a still very strong position with its empire intact.
The UK won the first major victories against the Germans during the war and showed that an invasion of the UK was impossible. So with this in mind how could it possibly be that the UK was in the war for istelf and not in it to protect its allies.
I mean we joined the war to DEFEND Poland for fuck sake.
British interests have always been to be a faithfull ally wether you like to admit it or not.
Hitler offered incredibly favourable terms to the British in order to get peace. He would respect the integrity of the British empire so long as the UK recognised Hitlers claims to Europe.
Strategically speaking those terms would've been a total disaster for Britain. Hitler would've gone after Britain once he consolidated power in mainlaind europe and Britain would've been unable to compete against an Europe that would've been controlled by the Nazis.
The UK didnt fight for its allies out of kindness.. it rather fought to prevent a war on its own soil and to a extent was succesful
Why does any nation fight war? I think you're being quite cold and callous for saying we 'didn't have the right spirit' for the deadliest war in human history. What matters is we were there and fought. You and the commenter above turning that into a pissing contest does no good.
You know the Germans wanted peace with the UK right? There ideal scenario was we'd basically sit the whole thing out and be left alone in return.
The Germans also had no plausible way to ever invade the UK. OP sealion would have been a massacre even if the Germans managed to win the battle of Britain, which they didn't.
It's not particularly relevant to the wider conversation, but the UK could have decided to sit that one out and probably been economically better off for it. Thankfully we do have some morals.
Cooperation is good but I thought the entire point for this EU defence fund was to make Europe more independent when it comes to military production. If they now keep adding overseas partners, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose?
In case of an actual major war, I doubt that Japan would be able to send military equipment to Europe from the other end of the world.
the reason why Nations like Japan and Canada apply for this fund is because they've shifted their Arms Procurement towards Europe
Japan specifically has a Large stake in the British Tempest Multirole fighter aircraft Programme in order to replace it's US designed F2 and F-15 Fighter Jets
having Japan as an Ally to Europe allows the EU to have a Foot in the Pacific even if the US stops cooperation with us
canada is similar, without the US Canada and Australia become europe's most Vital partners for Training and Exercising their Pilots as they have enough space to allow Young pilots to Fly without annoying and Endangering the Local population
The EU is giving loans to member states to spend on weaponry, but France has got a condition added that every weapon bought with EU money under this scheme has to be at least 65% made in the EU/EFTA/Ukraine. Outside countries that want a bigger share of the profits from the EU loans can pay an amount of money to have their defence industries considered part of the 65%. The precise amount of money to be paid is negotiable, depending on how much it's expected to be worth to their defence industries and it appears that Japan wants to open negotiations on this.
Japan is probably the next big country in terms of military stuff, given the investment that they are doing despite what's written in their constitution. They could also develop nukes if needed in a couple of months. It's definitely someone you'd want on your side if the US doesn't care about you any longer.
That said, this is probably too much. Too far way and will most likely run against the idea of Europe developing it's own industry. I think Canada is the acceptable maximum you can go. And if you add Japan, South Korea will probably want to do the same. In fact, if you add South Korea, Portugal might ask for an extra 800M€ from SAFE and buy 2 new submarines. It'd help us a lot, but the it's an example why the money and industry wouldn't stay in Europe.
I see people talking about the UK and Canada but as i understand it the cost was higher towards the UK because they did not want to adhear to the standard of 35% originating parts of the products and wanted to keep the 40%. This was an issue with other products not just wepons after Brexit. Before Brexit there was no issue since the UK was a part of the single market but after Brexit the UK tried to distance itself from the EU and this is the result. Canada on the other hand has been getting closer and closer to the EU.
I feel like SAFE is growing to be FAR more than just a common procurement program and is becoming a military alliance and alternative to NATO WITHOUT the US in of itself. Like everyone is positioning themselves for a post NATO/post America as an ally world.
And with Canada and Japan now wanting to join it it feels like the two have come to the same conclusion and want to join the EU's security apparatus since neither can be sure of America anymore.
Well China is already involved supporting Russia against Ukraine, so why not have Japan as an ally in the Pacific, the more the merrier right? Plus Japan is already involved in the European defence industry (kind of), developing the Tempest together with the UK and Italy.
Japan has submitted an official application to participate in the SAFE defense procurement program, the EU’s €150 billion defense investment instrument.
This was reported by Ukrinform with reference to a briefing by European Commission spokesman Tom Rainier.
“Turkey and South Korea have also expressed interest in starting bilateral negotiations on full association with SAFE. This also applies to Japan. I can confirm this today,” the spokesman said.
He reminded that after the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with Canada on joining SAFE, the next step for the EU will be to consider the applications of South Korea and Turkey.
Regarding Japan’s chances of concluding a SAFE agreement given its late application, the spokesperson noted that one should be careful with predictions. The European Commission has received 19 national plans from EU member states and is currently evaluating them.
The preliminary allocation for each member state that has applied is as follows:
Belgium: EUR 8,340,027,698
Bulgaria: EUR 3,261,700,000
Croatia: EUR 1,700,000,000
Cyprus: EUR 1,181,503,924
Czech Republic: EUR 2,060,000,000
Denmark: EUR 46,796,822
Estonia: EUR 2,660,932,171
Finland: EUR 1,000,000,000
France: EUR 16,216,720,524
Greece: EUR 787,669,283
Hungary: EUR 16,216,720,524
Italy: EUR 14,900,000,000
Latvia: EUR 5,680,431,322
Lithuania: EUR 6,375,487,840
Poland: EUR 43,734,100,805
Portugal: EUR 5,841,179,332
Romania: EUR 16,680,055,394
Slovakia: EUR 2,316,674,361
Spain: EUR 1,000,000,000
“However, it is very important to remember that third countries, including Japan, can participate in any case,” he added.
Germany isn't participating?
Germany can borrow cheaper than the EU. There is no point to use it.
We passed our own bill to the tune of $300 billion earlier this year. This is specifically so smaller countries can borrow with the EU's liquidity.
We're big enough to do our own thing and free up those loans for smaller countries.
They already have their own Sondervermögen. No need for additional loans from the EU.
They haven’t decided what they wanna buy yet.
SAFE
The SAFE defense procurement program provides up to €150 billion in long-term loans to requesting EU member states for investment in defense capabilities.
The initiative has become the first pillar of a large-scale European rearmament plan, which aims to invest more than €800 billion in defense spending across all EU member states by 2030.
Production of Oncilla armored vehicles. Poland. Source: MISTA
One of the key conditions for participation in the program is restrictions on the origin of components. According to the rules, no more than 35% of the cost of components can be accounted for by products from outside the European Economic Area or Ukraine.
Ukraine and the countries of the European Economic Area are involved on equal terms with EU member states. This includes the right to participate in joint procurement and the ability to offer their own products for procurement. But it does not provide direct access to SAFE loans.
15 EU member states also included support for Ukraine in their applications. Spain, Poland and Croatia have already publicly announced cooperation with Ukraine under this mechanism.
In particular, Spain announced that it would use €215 million from its application to purchase anti-drone systems, radars, and other defense technologies for Ukraine.
More about Ukraine’s participation in European rearmament projects in the issue of the ‘Zbroya’ project, created jointly with the Ukrainian Council of Defence Industry, “Europe Will Buy Weapons from Ukraine. Global Rearmament for 150 Billion”.
What I want to know is, who went through these numbers and though "Hmmm... Slovakia is getting short-changed. They are due one more Euro. There, fixed."
Those corrupt fucks in Hungary better not be involved. They are a puppet for Putin.
As someone who lives in Japan, I'm all for more collaborations with my old stomping ground.
How's life there? About the same as in Denmark?
Quality of life is about the same. I'm retired so the rather horrible working conditions are a moot point for me.
My main complaint about Denmark, as pampered a life as it was compared to most other places in the world, is that it was a pretty boring country. Japan is anything but.
I love 'em both, but I have no regrets moving.
Norway is the same. Fantastic country to live in but boring as fuck.
Why is it boring?
[deleted]
That's awesome to me. I love scandinavia, Iceland and Norway.
Yeah it's more about familiar community, I like that.
What excitement is to be expected? We're just a pretty stable and boring country.
No major natural disasters, coups or reasons we'd take to the streets protesting.
That's not really what makes a country interesting, though.
Apparently it should be the state’s responsibility to provide excitement. It’s odd that people go as tourists to enjoy all kinds of countries, so maybe it’s actually not the countries that’s the issue here? Maybe, just maybe it’s the individuals 😅
Edgy. Did you just discover the concept of culture, but somehow missed the fact that not every country is the same in terms of climate and geography? Or the fact these things influence each other?
Yes, if most of the time it’s cold outside with high humidity, rain or snow, and high winds, on top of rugged terrain, people won’t have a culture where they go outside to sit on the street cafes every evening.
Well, the thing is still that people like different things, and street cafes are not everyone’s cup of tea. A lot of people seem to enjoy an all inclusive beach vacation, something I find to be the most boring experience you can have. People enjoy different things.
Btw, love cafes, but also love having a cup of coffee by myself in the outdoors.
I, for one, wish I lived in less interesting times.
+1 Stability
I think he means things to do for fun. Unless you really like nature, there's not much to do. Oslo isn't exactly bursting with culture, vitality and things to do compared to London, New York, Tokyo, Rome, etc. etc.
I will say that in the summer there is a very strong festival tradition in Norway that actually brings quite a few big international artists so there is that.
Also another nice thing about Norway is that many of those exciting cities I just mentioned are a short flight away for vacation, then you can come back to safe and boring Norway when you're done partying.
The question was why Denmark was being described as a boring country. The follow-up was that that doesn't sound interesting and that apparently living in a given country should give me fulfillment, possibly from the state, by virtue of living here.
I'm not sure why me offering up an answer to the first question means I need to address any follow-ups about my private life.
I do fun things for fun.
Sounds perfect though?? You get excitement from other people's sorrow... sounds sad.
How did you not see the sarcasm ?
Poe's law
There's just not much happening looking at the country as a whole, same with Scandinavia + Finland in general. You have some bigger cities like Copenhagen, Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki or Gothenburg which are pretty much comparable to many european cities. Other than that it's mostly countryside, with Denmark being probably the most boring because most of it is farmland, but at least there's Legoland in Billund.
The further north you go, the more nature there is, mountains, fjords, lakes, rivers, forests and bogs, some places, especially in Norway have some very dramatic landscapes, Trollveggen being a good example.
Most of that nature is also very sparsely populated, so unless you like winter sports and nature without people, the area can feel kind of boring and Denmark doesn't even have that, just beaches that are cold and windy, often rainy for much of the year and people that talk funny.
tbh i'd rather live in a country, like Denmark or norway, than some place that is exciting with a lower quality of life
life is what you make of it.
i prefer a safe life
Tokyo is safe but it's also quite exciting. Some backwards town may also be safe, but it's definitely not exciting. I think that's what they meant.
Why not safe and exciting?
Same, if the worst thing you can say about living in a country is that it is boring then it must be a pretty great place to live
At least most of it is very pretty to look at. You know when you choose to create a flat world in Minecraft? I'm fairy certain that's how Denmark was created.
The Mountain of Heavens in Denmark is named after Nordic mythology's tallest mountain in the realm of the Gods. It's a hill 147m above sea level. On it stands the towering structure The Tower of Heavens. At a paltry 25m. Even the national anthem is full of "No really, our land isn't flat at all".
Wait how do you go about living in Japan if you dont have a work visa?
I did when I first moved here. The company I worked at opened a branch in Japan and via the CoE I got a highly skilled professional work visa and from there I became a permanent resident after just a year.
The bureaucracy is ridiculous in Japan, so I thank my lucky stars the company handled the majority of it.
How's your Japanese and how hard is it to connect with the locals, if I may ask?
I was on a conversational level before I moved, and am fairly fluent in everything outside of kanji now. That alone does most of the work for getting along with locals. I live in a quiet neighborhood which is also made up of about 20% expats, so I'm no peculiar unicorn. I am when I visit the extremely rural areas though.
And honestly, Danes are sorta similar to the Japanese, in a weird way. There isn't that big of a gap when you try to connect.
You know. I can see the points of comparison between the 2. Kinda feels like strangely good match.
Agreed, lived in South Korea for a few months, and it was weirdly homely and familiar, yet obviously incredibly foreign at the same time.
That jetix logo gave me nostalgia ngl
Weather is probably better in Japan than here in Aarhus…
Havent lived in Japan but been there for vacation. I was in Tokyo in September and the humidity I experienced was the worst in my life, you couldnt stand outside.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c14vpek5v0rt
I live smackdown in the middle of Tokyo, so tsunamis aren't a threat. It has been quite the acclimation period re earthquakes however.
In Denmark, a gust of wind once blew over a chair in my backyard... It was pretty intense.
Holy shit! Link to video??
Probably somewhere in liveleak archives
I was there. We will rebuild
If the wind knocks over anything at my parents in Norway it becomes the talk for at least a week.
It will be interesting to see how much their fee will be as Japan has a solid MIC. It’ll most definitely be higher then Canada but it’s unlikely to be at the level of the EU’s request of the UK
Which would be mad as they're people who've built components for the ISS, their industry is no joke
A sane explanation of the UK - EU SAFE negotiations, to counteract the masses of British and French people blaming each other for nonsense.
SAFE is the provision of cheap loans to EU countries, which can be used by the EU nations receiving money (which is not all of them, the list is here) to buy military equipment. One condition of the program is that...
There is not and was never any prospect that the UK would receive loan money from the EU. What the negotiations were about was increasing that 35% limit. Currently, for example, an EU recipient of SAFE money couldn't use it to buy Meteor missiles, as ~40% of them is made in the UK. The goal was to increase the limit so that more of the products of the UK industry were eligible for purchase with SAFE money.
The negotiations failed fundamentally just because the EU and UK couldn't agree a price for that limit increase. That's it. The EU of course wants a high price because sales going to UK industry will likely reduce sales to EU industries. The UK wants a low price because it needs to be sure that it actually gets a return on its investment. The fact that no agreement could be made implies that the EU has more confidence in the UKs ability to make sales to major SAFE recipients than HMG.
Does it actually matter? Probably not. Ultimately as I say there's few major arms sales in the works to major SAFE recipients. The main deals are for Type 31 frigates to Sweden or Denmark, neither of whom are getting consequential amounts of funding. For other equipment - like Meteor - people are still going to buy and ultimately money is fungible. They can just use SAFE funds for eligible purchases and ordinary funding for our kit.
Unfortunately this is being presented by some British people as evidence of antagonism towards the UK by the EU, and by some Europeans as evidence of Britain trying to have its cake and eat it. This literally is just a disagreement over price that's going to have likely close to no impact on procurement or relations. Everyone just relax, please.
These sorts of posts need to be auto-stuck to any news containing "UK" and "SAFE" in the same sentence... Or just when the program is mentioned on this sub.
I think it's actually pretty difficult to not view this as some form of antagonism towards the UK.
the UK is one of the most important countries when it comes to defence in Europe and has been for a very long time, it's taken defence seriously than a majority of EU countries (still not as serious as we should have taken it) it's been very vocal about defending Europe and has both a large millitary industry and large (for European states) millitary.
even after Brexit it has kept the same commitment to Europe, perhaps even a stronger one (mainly due to the situation in Ukraine), I don't mind the idea of an EU defence fund for EU nations but dangling the carrot for the UK and asking what is in reality a totally insane price is a bit of a slap in the face, especially when you are letting other very much not EU nations in for seemingly a lot more of a reasonable price.
It's pretty clear certain EU nations want to protect their own domestic industries (nothing actually wrong with that in reality) and are in many situations quite willing to escalate issues that should have been resolved years and years ago as a bit of a snub to the UK.
but as some people have said when this topic comes up the UK did not say "fuck you" to the EU, we left and we continue to be an extremely crucial ally, we work closely on science, millitary, industry and in a lot of other areas.
Literally everyone opens negotiations with a price that makes the other party go "haha nope". This is just normal. The UKs opening offer was also an obviously too low figure.
I know you think they do but that is a very boring Trump esque 'art of the deal' tactic that will generally get you scoffed at and make other people quite angry when it comes to negotiating things, especially when it comes to governmental things.
you might start a bit higher and justify it, see the slightly too low counter offer and try meet in the middle but coming in with something crazy high/low is just rude and dumb.
As I say, both party's opening offers were obviously unacceptable to the other side. If the EU was being rude and dumb with their ask, so was the UK with theirs.
Unless I'm wrong the UK made a counter offer, it wasn't an offer made at the same time, starting with such a high number basically sets the table for nothing good to happen
The EU was demanding €7 billion when Canada is only paying €10 million. It's very clear that you would defend the EU in any situation
I bet you couldn't even name a single canadian defence company or product.
Right, but...
a) that's the negotiated fee, not the EUs opening offer to Canada. We don't know what that was.
b) the Canadian defence industry is nowhere near as powerful as the UKs, they're not even in the same ballpark.
I'm also defending the UK here but for some reason you're not complaining about that
Canada were offered a 10 million Euro entry free to join the programme. The UK was offered an entry fee of about 2 billion Euros (the initial offer was even higher). The ludicrously huge gulf between the UK and Canada's fee cannot be justified based on an economic argument.
Canada negotiated a 10 million Euro entry free. We do not know what the opening offer was. Regardless though, a huge difference is inevitable; the UKs military industry is far more developed than Canadas.
200 times greater? And the initial offer was over 4 billion! Are you seriously suggesting they thought our GDP and/or arms industry was 400 times greater?
I'm saying that they thought the impact that inclusion our arms industry could have on EU arms industry eclipsed the impact they thought Canadas would have. As to the price; as I say. 10million is the negotiated final price; we don't know what their opening offer to Canada was.
Well their final offer to us was about 2 billions euros, so again, is the UK 200 times more impactful than Canada? Canada's GDP is about 2.14 trillion versus 3.6 trillion for the UK, a factor of 1.7, so the GDP difference certainly does not justify anything. Canada's arms industry is doing well and is certainly not 200 times smaller than the UK's. Canada doesn't include arms exports to the US in the official figures, but it's estimated to be something like $3 billion on top of their $2 billion-ish of reported exports, so say $5 billion versus the Uk's $14 billion. Certainly a factor of 200 is way over the top.
The EU position is ludicrous.
They are facing a threat from the Russians, so getting one of Europe's nuclear armed countries, with a military that has a record of winning wars onside. Would seem to be very much in the EU's interests.
Instead they decided to attempt to extort money from the UK.
Which tells you the EU is not serious when it comes to defence.
Have you found Germany somewhere in there? Same applies to them right?
It's not extortion to ask for payment to increase the participation limit...and the UK is already onside
Brits complaining about eu being antagonistic after literally telling the eu to fuck off by Brexit is hilarious
It's almost like even after Brexit the UK has stayed wholly comitted to European defence and has been one of the few countries to take it seriously over the past many years (although not as much as we all should have) alongside being an ally of the EU
The sentiment of your reply suggests to me that you're part of the problem that OP was addressing in their well reasoned and diplomatic explanation.
You'll find that those inclined to support Brexit are of the opinion that EU antagonism is why they supported it in the first place.
As a remain supporter, the antagonism is not a figment of people's imagination.
I think it is being done to discourage any other country from following the same trajectory
I'm talking about the antagonism during the decade prior to the referendum. People can pretend that Brexit appeared from nowhere and that it was all just the racist right wing complaining about foreigners all they want, but the officials at the EU were doing their bit to antagonise the British government for years.
What's also hilarious is EU peeps whose countries have done almost sweet fuck all to contribute to pan-European defence calling the UK unreliable when it's been one of the most consistent countries for decades.
We didn't tho. We played the partner who was threatening to leave with no intention of doing so. Then had nowhere else to turn when the EU called our bluff. It was a perfect example of how 'leadership' in this country under the tories, was practically non existent.
Because the bulk of those who voted leave are still pro Europe
And as we all know, people of one ethnic group are a hivemind who all think the same way.
We voted to leave. It's sad that people interpret that as being told to fuck off.
Did you want us to kiss your feet and massage your ego on the way out?
If we want to leave we want to leave. Perhaps try not to get upset about other people exercising their free choice.
Oh ok. Hold on, Now you’re telling me to relax! HEY EVERYBODY LETS GET HIM INSTEAD!!! :)
Thank you so much for explaining this
Why is France in there, but not Germany or the Netherlands?
And lol, why is Hungary on the list at all. They should not get a cent. Hungary would be the first country to switch to Putlers side if it comes to it. They are as anti-EU as it gets.
Germany can get a loan at cheaper rates than France and Hungary. SAFE is a EU backed loan programme..
Both Germany and the Netherlands can borrow money cheaply on their own, taking out loans via the EU only really makes sense if the conditions are better.
I see, ok thanks for the explanation.
Literally anyone but the UK lol
https://defence24.com/industry/london-says-no-to-the-safe-programme
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/britain-walks-away-eu-rearmament-plan-over-pay-to-play-demands-jpm9382t8
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/28/talks-for-uk-to-join-eu-defence-fund-collapse-in-blow-to-starmers-bid-to-reset-relations
Canada, Japan and SK are fully willing to pay an entry fee to access the fund.
UK isn't.
But sure UK is the victim here, again.
France bad.
Read your own links ffs. Embarrassing
Canada's total fee is in two-digit millions - hundreds of times less than that of the UK. Japan's estimated fee is not yet decided. The price tag rolled out for the UK was insurmountable compared to one of the countries that you mentioned, so there's that - the EU stated its price, however (un)justified it is, and the UK rejected. After rounds of negotiations regarding the price tag, both parties agreed that the possible geopolitical and security benefits aren't worth this sum, which indicates the lack of interest on both sides.
There are no victims here - only the lack of interest and incentives on both sides and diverging geopolitical views and affiliations.
I would expect that the UK stands to gain more from the deal than Canada since the UK has a much bigger defense industry. No clue whether that justifies the huge price difference or not between the two though.
Thank you, you are absolutely right.
I'm tired of seeing UK people cry that EU is mean for not giving access to the fund. That's all.
It does seem weird. Either keep it EU or open it up but to take Canada for a couple million but demand billions from out closest non-EU ally smells fishy
The point is that Canada doesn't have much in terms of weapons for sale that are US-free enough to qualify for the deal, and the weapon systems they contribute to (e.g. the saab AEW uses a bombardier plane) don't really have alternatives.
UK, on the other hand has plenty weapon systems that; if elligible, could amount to tens of billions of sales. Some of these weapon systems compete with EU materials. So obviously, the EU was going to ask vastly more from the UK than from Canada.
You people are hilariously naive. You think that the EU is far too principled and perfect to ever do something with bad intentions. The EU literally referred to the Falkland islands as Las Malvinas in official documentation, even though 99.8% of Falkand islanders want to remain British. It's equivalent to referring to kyiv as Kiev in official documentation.
I am strongly in favour of co-operation and thought Brexit was a stupid idea that was dishonestly portrayed.
However, even I realised that asking for about 6 billion Euros was done knowing it was impossible for the UK to agree. Then asking for anything even close to the suggested 1% of that from Canada made sure that it reminded people of the realities here. The f at that this was justified by reference to a fair calculation that we can’t see may be a hint about what is happening. But why shouldn’t France do that if it helps French industry?
The equivalent might be someone putting a For Sale sign on a house. A person of one nationality asked how much and is told $1m, and is then shocked to see a person of a different nationality buying the house for a small fraction of that $1m. That might get criticism but is hardly impossible.
Hopefully this will once again underline that no one can afford to leave the EU unless most members want a country to leave.
No, they're mad about supposed 'allies' being hostile.
Until shit hits the fan of course, and you need our help.
The UK was willing to pay an entry fee, just not the entry fee that the EU wanted. This was just a disagreement over price; nobody is bad here.
Glad to see sensible people answering to me.
I'm just tired of seeing UK people cry that EU is mean for not giving access to the fund. That's all.
And I'm tired of seeing people call the UK unreliable because it didn't want to pay 6 billion euros to bid for more contracts.
You know the funny thing is it's mostly the same people that supported Brexit that are so upset over stuff like this now.
Canada is paying €10 million. That's very different to €7 billion.
It's scaled according to the population. Everyone knows the population of the UK is 8 Billion, so the EU clearly based their calculations on that :)
Seriously though, trying to punish the UK is pretty stupid given the military situation and the uncertainly Europe faces right now.
Did you... not read the articles you quoted in your own comment?
The entire reason the talks fell through, was because France used their position as an EU member state to insert a poison pill into the negotiations (something they are well within their right to do). They massively trumped up the fee to protect the French military-industrial complex from UK competition. Again they are well within their right to do this, but it was nonetheless pretty cynical.
You’re missing the guys flair, naturally France isn’t to blame in any way, shape or form for it falling through.
France is doing the exact same thing Britain is doing: looking out for its own interests. I don't blame either of these countries for doing this. There's too much money involved.
Well yes, look how it went for Germany and their 6th gen jet ambitions too.
ctvnews.ca
There’s no poison pill. The same framework is used to work out the fee for all 3rd country participants and there is a regulation mechanism to correct if the realised contracts differ from the forecast.
I'm struggling to understand the methodology that somehow arrived at the fee disparity we are seeing. I guess we will just have to wait and see how Canada's contribution gets corrected.
My guess is it’s because the UK defense industry is ten times the size of Canadas while also closer and already has more established and stable interconnection with the EU countries, so it is expected to see far more contracts.
Forecasts could also be way off for both Canada and the UK. 10 million € does sound very low, and the Canadians seem disappointed with what that spells for the potential for contracts from the programme.
uk probably has a far bigger military industry and will be able to win lots more contracts than Canada, a country without military ambition and no nations threatening them seriously (yet)
Well thank goodness Europe doesn't get any of that top of the line military equipment. That really would have been awful.
The UK rejected it because the EU demanded Britain pay 200 times that of Canada for the same access.
Did France also not try and shoehorn some fishing quotas into it also?
The UK economy would benefit from all participants due to its arms manufacturers. The entry price was proportionate to the benefit.
It is up to the UK to decide whether it's proportional to their benefit or not. They concluded with the latter.
Of course it is. It just doesn't fit to frame them as some kind of victim.
I'm providing some perspective by explaining the mechanism behind the entry price level.
Yes it was so well costed that they dropped the entry fee over two thirds immediately and had their own diplomats calling it absurd....
Just call it what it is, chancing.
The victims are those in the east while france sits prioritising its industry.
Because the UK was asked to contribute a ridiculously larger amount than other nations. That aren't even local to the region. UK being able to rearm is much more useful to the EU than a Japan who technically still can't have a standing army or Canada who half the world away, but here we are.
Canada is going to contribute at a different level than the UK wanted to. Yknow, different negotiations buddy.
But Canada would sell about less hardware than the Brits out of the deal. Look both sides couldn't agree on terms so didn't proceed. That happens.
You're wrong, that's not the reason UK rejected it
I'm quoting him again but The British minister for relations with EU said
"Negotiations were carried out in good faith, but our position was always clear: we will only sign agreements that are in the national interest and provide value for money."
They refused the deal over National interests
And as he says, UK will still be able to participate in project without the fund, anyway.
They consider their position preferable.
Third party contributors will benefit less anyway, since procurement contracts must ensure that no more than 35% of component costs originate from outside the EU, EEA-EFTA, or Ukraine.
So at least 65% of the funds will be invested in EU, EEA-EFTA or Ukraine.
We absolutely need Japan and Canada, they are also close to Russia and we'll benefit from strenghtening our relationship with these countries against Russia.
Anyway, my point isn't to say UK bad, just that they are defending their interests, just like the EU.
UK citizens playing the victims, crying as soon as things don't go their way, is getting insanely boring to me, that's all.
The national interests is paying a price that they consider worthwhile given the expected return on their investment. It's just a disagreement over price, nothing more.
Yes, the national interest of not being ripped off in comparison to other countries.
Ripped off ? You realise that in the end UK will get more money than they invested, right ?
Well apparently HMG disagree or they'd have made a deal. That's fundamentally what's caused the lack of agreement; the UK thinks the price demanded won't give them a return (or perhaps that they'd get a better return by investing the money directly themselves)
I would like to hear a number, but can't find any.
Poland is getting something like 40 billion, France 16 billion. I wouldn't expect UK to get any less than 12 billion.
And it's perfectly understandable if they prefer to do it that way.
Eh? You're misunderstanding my friend. Those figures for Poland and France are the amounts of the loans that the SAFE program will give to those nations. The UK would get no loans; none whatsoever. Those loans can be used by Poland and France to buy military equipment provided that no more than 35% of the value of that equipment is produced outside the EU. What the UK was negotiating for was to raise that limit - for example so that Poland could use some of its 40 billion to buy Meteor missiles, which are 40% UK made.
Obviously the amount that would actually go to the UK would depend heavily on the sales it's industry managed to make to EU nations that were benefiting from SAFE loans. That's extremely difficult to assess, but we don't historically sell much to the major beneficiaries of SAFE so I'm not surprised at all by the failure to strike a deal.
The UK would get nothing. The UK was not attempting to join SAFE as a loan recipient. The €7 billion that the EU was demanding was simply for the privilege of allowing us to bid for contracts funded by the scheme.
Nah, because we know you and the EU. After we join well find out that just so happens most of the projects and kit we propose will be just outside of eligibility “shame, thanks for the cash though”
The UK has more to gain from it as well. They have a bigger arms industry which would benefit from the program.
Maybe the reason why they asked for more skin in the game is because you are in the same region
War in europe would impact the UK before Canada or Japan or South korea
Yes, France is the bad guy here.
Well, you did on occasion go over the channel to invade them. I suspect they may still hold a grudge...
😂😂😂
They had their revenge with Jeanne d'Arc and Waterloo c'mon ☹️
It was rejected because of the ludicrous offer.
How much did Canada have to pay again?
But no, go off. When Russia starts getting handsy again there’s a lot more countries in the way before they start encroaching on the UK.
Spirit of co-operation my arse.
[deleted]
UK sidelined themselves.
I'm not that salty about it anymore, honest, but these talks wouldn't have happened if Brexit didn't happen.
Anyway, UK doesn't need to join the fund, they can perfectly participate from the outside and probably get better return on investment.
Good on them.
As per usual politics are getting in the way of European cooperation. I wish people would drop their stupid nationalistic egos and realise that Europe need to work as one in order to face current challenges.
UK did try, but was sent to pound sand due to political reasons. Paying the mandated billions-worth tribute while Canada gets to pay 16 million is both economically and politically unfeasible for the UK, so there's that: both parties agreed they don't need each other.
People really get all hot under the collar about this; literally the EU and UK just couldn't agree a price for participation.
Hey do you want to buy this? It costs X.
Sorry that's too much, how about Y?
Nope that's not enough, never mind.
That's all that happened, and everyone wants to paint it as either the evil EU trying to harm the UK or else the UK trying to have its cake and eat it.
the difference is - UK arms manufacturers would have received many billions of orders
Canada has far fewer arms manufacturers and would receive much less
like i think the 2 billion they asked for is a bit much, but comparing it to the canada number is disingenuous because it's a very different situation
They wanted 6.5 billion to begin with...
UK offered to pay 200-300 millions which is ridiculously low, EU wants 4 to 6 billions which is ridiculously high. This is just typical negotiation game...
Man can you imagine ... The UK going to war for other European nations in WW2, being the last major European power standing against the Germans and not giving up, they basically gave up their entire empire for the good of the continent, just to be treated like shit in 2025 because they made one bad decision.
I feel like they are owed some leeway.
Average r/europe post
it's not that deep - EU countries want defence procurement money to flow to their own industry in order to build up a stronger defence industry
including the UK in the program would have led to a significant chunk of that money going to UK manufacturers instead of their own and the EU countries wanted to be compensated for that - it is a bit petty and I think the 2 billion they asked for in the end was a bit much, but it's standard industrial policy, it's not that deep
Canada/Japan aren't comparable, they would get a very small number of orders as part of the program
I will be honest, it might've been the single worst bad decision possible lol, youre being a bit reductive
It may be, but it's done. There's no reversing it - only owning and building up from it.
The UK is not entitled to EU money anymore. Stop feeling so entitled.
It's not clear yet what side the UK will be on in a potential war over Canada/Greenland. Paying into this fund would have meant getting off the fence.
But the EU is entitled to the protection offered by the British military in Ireland and the Baltics?
American teaching Europeans their own history. Got any more? Rofl...
Well you lot on the continent seem to have forgotten all that we did for you so maybe someone should remind you.
Being british and not mentionning the war => challenge: impossible
Lol oversimplification much?
The UK didnt fight for its allies out of kindness.. it rather fought to prevent a war on its own soil and to a extent was succesful
Not mentioning the entire history behind why it was expected to fight
Both the Germans and Italians were desperate for peace with Britain at the outset of war. Hitler offered incredibly favourable terms to the British in order to get peace. He would respect the integrity of the British empire so long as the UK recognised Hitlers claims to Europe. The UK if it was only in the war for itself could have hashed out a peace treay that wouldve left it in a still very strong position with its empire intact.
The UK won the first major victories against the Germans during the war and showed that an invasion of the UK was impossible. So with this in mind how could it possibly be that the UK was in the war for istelf and not in it to protect its allies.
I mean we joined the war to DEFEND Poland for fuck sake.
British interests have always been to be a faithfull ally wether you like to admit it or not.
Strategically speaking those terms would've been a total disaster for Britain. Hitler would've gone after Britain once he consolidated power in mainlaind europe and Britain would've been unable to compete against an Europe that would've been controlled by the Nazis.
Why does any nation fight war? I think you're being quite cold and callous for saying we 'didn't have the right spirit' for the deadliest war in human history. What matters is we were there and fought. You and the commenter above turning that into a pissing contest does no good.
You need to read more history. If Britain only wanted to avoid war we could simply have accepted Hitler’s multiple peace offers.
You went to war with Germany because they invaded Poland after you signed a treaty with poland
Germany also violated 3 different treaties when i started WW2
Yet you believe that it would have left the Uk untouched because of a... treaty?
You know the Germans wanted peace with the UK right? There ideal scenario was we'd basically sit the whole thing out and be left alone in return.
The Germans also had no plausible way to ever invade the UK. OP sealion would have been a massacre even if the Germans managed to win the battle of Britain, which they didn't.
It's not particularly relevant to the wider conversation, but the UK could have decided to sit that one out and probably been economically better off for it. Thankfully we do have some morals.
Lmao, i love how Poland by itself is taking almost 1/3rd
And Hungary gets 16 billion, while everyone knows their symphaties.
It's not that they are just given free money. It's a loan that they have to repay.
So they get 16 billion because they requested that amount of money.
Who better to fight the Russians though?
Ukrainians, who we should just be supporting instead
I was just talking about the EU, Poland is the most obvious country to heavily fund.
As with like almost any EU fund lmao
Remember the corona recovery fund? Guess who got the most (Country name starts with an I)
because poland is the country that needs the money the most (in the EU)
Because it will be the one fighting first. It just makes sense to arm the border states more.
Are you surprised? Poland needs both the money and the arms.
send dudes
You know, we live in interesting times where almost all the countries of World War II, both Axis and Allies, have joined forces.
You gotta shake it up for the third installment
Cooperation is good but I thought the entire point for this EU defence fund was to make Europe more independent when it comes to military production. If they now keep adding overseas partners, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose?
In case of an actual major war, I doubt that Japan would be able to send military equipment to Europe from the other end of the world.
the reason why Nations like Japan and Canada apply for this fund is because they've shifted their Arms Procurement towards Europe
Japan specifically has a Large stake in the British Tempest Multirole fighter aircraft Programme in order to replace it's US designed F2 and F-15 Fighter Jets
having Japan as an Ally to Europe allows the EU to have a Foot in the Pacific even if the US stops cooperation with us
canada is similar, without the US Canada and Australia become europe's most Vital partners for Training and Exercising their Pilots as they have enough space to allow Young pilots to Fly without annoying and Endangering the Local population
But what does this do exactly? What does this do for Japan? Because they won't receive loans right? Is it just that they provide money for the loans?
The EU is giving loans to member states to spend on weaponry, but France has got a condition added that every weapon bought with EU money under this scheme has to be at least 65% made in the EU/EFTA/Ukraine. Outside countries that want a bigger share of the profits from the EU loans can pay an amount of money to have their defence industries considered part of the 65%. The precise amount of money to be paid is negotiable, depending on how much it's expected to be worth to their defence industries and it appears that Japan wants to open negotiations on this.
Ah I see thanks 👍
JAPAN, YES PLEASE ❤️
We should build a tunnel to Japan
Does DB get to run the trains in it, or the Japanese?
Need to replace NATO with Free United Countries Keeping Together Resolute Under Mutual Purpose
Japan is probably the next big country in terms of military stuff, given the investment that they are doing despite what's written in their constitution. They could also develop nukes if needed in a couple of months. It's definitely someone you'd want on your side if the US doesn't care about you any longer.
That said, this is probably too much. Too far way and will most likely run against the idea of Europe developing it's own industry. I think Canada is the acceptable maximum you can go. And if you add Japan, South Korea will probably want to do the same. In fact, if you add South Korea, Portugal might ask for an extra 800M€ from SAFE and buy 2 new submarines. It'd help us a lot, but the it's an example why the money and industry wouldn't stay in Europe.
Japan are at the opposite end of Russia to Europe. They would be excellent allies and strategically positioned to ensure Russia's forces are split.
I see people talking about the UK and Canada but as i understand it the cost was higher towards the UK because they did not want to adhear to the standard of 35% originating parts of the products and wanted to keep the 40%. This was an issue with other products not just wepons after Brexit. Before Brexit there was no issue since the UK was a part of the single market but after Brexit the UK tried to distance itself from the EU and this is the result. Canada on the other hand has been getting closer and closer to the EU.
They'll probably be let in for €10 million, like Canada was. Remember, the EU demanded €7 billion from the UK to join.
Isn't the term for a special agreement already expired? So they will just have access up to 35% like anyone can, no?
I feel like SAFE is growing to be FAR more than just a common procurement program and is becoming a military alliance and alternative to NATO WITHOUT the US in of itself. Like everyone is positioning themselves for a post NATO/post America as an ally world.
And with Canada and Japan now wanting to join it it feels like the two have come to the same conclusion and want to join the EU's security apparatus since neither can be sure of America anymore.
Greater Germany and Japan unite
Germany is not participating.
Welcome Japan
i thought this was to defend europe ? we here trying to survive against Russia and USA and they want to add China to the list ?!
Well China is already involved supporting Russia against Ukraine, so why not have Japan as an ally in the Pacific, the more the merrier right? Plus Japan is already involved in the European defence industry (kind of), developing the Tempest together with the UK and Italy.