The EU is not punishing the UK, it’s treating the UK as what it chose to become, a third country.
If Britain had £1 for every time anti-EU commentators cried ‘Brussels’ Brexit revenge,’ the Treasury’s problems would be solved overnight.
The latest example comes courtesy of the Mail on Sunday, which claims that the EU is punishing the UK with ‘onerous terms’ for access to its £130bn defence fund.
According to the paper, British firms seeking to participate in the EU’s Security Action for Europe (SAFE) scheme would be required to source certain technologies and components from within Europe. This, the Mail insists, is not a predictable condition of joining a foreign programme after leaving the EU, but a deliberate act of malice, aka ‘Brussels’ revenge.’
The article suggests that the clause was “slipped into the small print at a backroom meeting in Brussels last week” and represents the “latest trick to impose EU rules on a post-Brexit Britain.” An unnamed “defence expert” is quoted warning that the conditions would be “utterly deadly for our national security,” allegedly risking Britain’s access to cutting-edge US defence technology.
Readers are also told that “Eurocrats have slapped a £2 billion fee” on UK participation in SAFE, a scheme offering low-interest loans to boost Europe’s military capacity in areas such as ammunition, drones and missiles. The programme was created in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and amid concerns that the Trump administration could further weaken America’s commitment to NATO.
What the article does not seriously engage with is the rather obvious point, that SAFE is an EU programme, designed to strengthen European supply chains, using European public money. Requiring participants to source from Europe is not revenge, it’s the entire point of the scheme.
Even the French defence minister, Catherine Vautrin, quoted by the Mail, undermines the paper’s narrative. She acknowledged that the terms for UK participation were “very onerous,” but added that Britain “chose to leave Europe with Brexit… and unfortunately that choice has consequences.” This is not gloating; it’s simply a statement of fact.
The Mail also leans on Professor Gwythian Prins, an outspoken Brexiteer, who claims it is a mistake for the UK to align itself with Europe rather than the United States. Prins, who boasts close contacts with Brexit hardliners and has written for climate-sceptic groups, repeats the line that the EU’s terms are “utterly deadly” to UK security, without providing evidence for how cooperation with European allies somehow weakens Britain’s defence.
Unsurprisingly, the article was mocked online. “We were told we couldn’t have our cake and eat it, but that was dismissed as ‘Project Fear’,” wrote campaign group Leeds for Europe. “Now the same people claim it’s Brussels taking revenge.”
Others noted the irony of the Mail appearing to concede, inadvertently, that leaving the EU has made Britain’s position weaker, not stronger.
As one commenter put it: “It’s not difficult. What you buy is connected to what you pay. Other countries — Canada, South Korea, New Zealand — have worked this out. We had a good deal, but some people insisted they knew better. Now the penny is dropping.”
This is the central dishonesty of the ‘Brussels revenge’ narrative. The EU is not punishing the UK, it’s treating the UK as what it chose to become, a third country. Access to EU money comes with EU conditions. That was always the case, and it was always warned about.
Calling this revenge may sell certain newspapers, but it doesn’t change reality. Brexit had consequences and this is one of them.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.