Alyn Smith: Why Scotland urgently needs a seat at the EU table

It isn’t always successful and it can appear slow-moving, but as a modus operandi for cohering 27 very different member states, I think avoiding drama has a lot to be said for it.

So the announcement on Twitter/X on Wednesday by Josep Borell Fontelles, the EU’s Foreign Policy High Representative in advance of the EU Foreign and Defence Ministers’ meeting in Brussels next week is really significant: “Ukraine’s Kursk offensive is a severe blow to Russian President Putin’s narrative.

Lifting restrictions on the use of capabilities vs the Russian military involved in aggression against Ukraine, in accordance with international law, would have several important effects: “Strengthen Ukrainian self-defence by ending Russia’s sanctuary for its attacks and bombardments of Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.

READ MORE: EU expansion on agenda in Brussels, opportunities clear for Scotland

“Save lives and reduce destruction in Ukraine.

“Help advance peace efforts.

“As I conveyed to Ukrainian FM Dmytro Kuleba the EU fully supports Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. I look forward to meeting him in Brussels and to a discussion with EU foreign and defence ministers next week, to move forward in our support to UA.”

Diplomacy isn’t done on Twitter/X – this is the EU Foreign Policy chief announcing that a broad compromise has already been reached and the EU will be lifting restrictions on the use by Ukraine of weaponry supplied by EU states. This is a big shift in policy, but it is catching up with the reality on the ground.

Ukraine had previously been hamstrung in efforts to resist Russian attacks from Russian territory by the wariness of EU states, and the US, of allowing them to attack Russian targets in Russia, limiting the use of EU-supplied weapons to strictly defensive purposes, on Ukrainian territory. This was for fear of use of EU supplied weapons in attacks on Russia could provoke a reprisal against the state supplying the weaponry.

It is safe to say Ukraine has pushed back against this, initially with drone attacks on targets within Russia, even reportedly destroying aircraft at the Olenya airbase in the Arctic, 1900 kilometres away from Ukraine.

But the ground offensive by Ukrainian troops into Kursk Oblast – capturing an area of Russian territory roughly the size of West Lothian, Edinburgh and Midlothian combined – has dramatically altered the reality on the ground.

Ukraine has long been pushing for the limits on the use of EU-supplied weapons to be lifted, and I would be confident that next week’s summit in Brussels will do so. There will of course be haggling, but I would put money the broad shape of the shift has been set already.

This is a real-time example of the EU changing before our eyes into a defence actor, and that has implications for all of us. Member states have historically been hyper-reluctant to see Brussels involvement in any defence issues, preferring either Nato or neutrality. This is changing at (for Brussels) light speed.

The incoming European Commission will have a specific defence commissioner, where so far many of the measures the EU has created to cohere defence issues have been overseen by Thierry Breton, the French-appointed internal market commissioner.

But the advances have been considerable, driven by the desire amongst EU states for a co-ordinated approach to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Even if the previous annexation, in 2014, of Crimea provoked no such response, better late than never.

The EU started small in 2017 largely at the behest of French President Emmanuel Macron, with two “pilot programmes” with the innocuous aims of boosting innovation, putting EU-made options on the market, and providing an EU alternative to US products (much as they didn’t mention the US specifically).

The Preparatory Action on Defence Research (PADR) was allocated €90 million between 2017-19. It was followed and boosted by the European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP) with €500m for 2019-2020 to fund the joint development of defence products and technologies.

READ MORE: Alyn Smith: Evolving EU energy policy opens door for Scotland

Parallel to these budgets, the PESCO (Permanent European Structured Cooperation) framework was created with the aim of encouraging member states to jointly manufacture and procure defence equipment.

It was initially designed as a small coalition of the willing but now includes all EU states but Malta, with the member states piling in to make sure their defence industries are not left out. There are 68 projects under way, some have worked better than others, and they’ll be concluded by 2025.

Everything will be folded into the more ambitious framework, with a stonking €8 billion behind it. The European Defence Fund (EDF) will fund research R+D, including at least three companies based in three different EU countries.

The EDF regulation will run to the end of the EU budget’s current cycle, 2027. There’s also the European Peace Facility, which has facilitated the delivery of €3.5bn in arms to Ukraine, with another €5.5bn foreseen.

So there’s a lot going on, and there’s more than I have space here to cover. Right now there’s little clarity on how Scottish and UK firms will be involved. The UK does participate in some PESCO projects, and there’re other co-operations under way but there’s no overarching framework and less and less desire in Brussels for ad hoc arrangements.

As the new UK Government works out what better relations with the EU actually means, to my mind, defence and security co-operation are no-brainers.

It is also an area where the UK and Scotland bring a lot to the table and have a lot to gain from involvement. What is clear is that the EU schemes will promote – and indeed protect – EU firms, and right now that’s not us, Nato or not.

The EU is not replacing Nato in any sense, but it is growing at pace and we’re not in the room. That needs fixing.