On September 18, 2025, the European Union formally opened negotiations with the United Kingdom and Canada over their participation in a landmark European defence procurement programme, known as the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) scheme. This move marks a significant—if cautious—step in the ongoing, often fraught, relationship between Britain and its continental neighbours since Brexit. While the headlines may have been dominated by political drama and populist tides, behind the scenes, diplomats are quietly stitching together new frameworks for cooperation in a rapidly changing security landscape.
At its core, the SAFE scheme is the EU’s answer to the urgent need for rearmament and collective security, especially in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to BBC, the European Commission plans to issue up to €150 billion (£130 billion) in long-term, low-interest loans to member states and eligible partners. These loans are intended to help nations jointly procure critical military equipment—everything from ammunition and artillery to missile defence systems and military drones. The initiative is part of a broader Europe Re-armament Plan, which boasts a projected budget of €800 billion stretching to 2030, as reported by site.btaEU.
But what does this mean for British industry? The UK, having left the EU, cannot apply for these loans directly. However, a defence pact agreed in May 2025 paved the way for UK-based defence companies to participate in projects funded under the SAFE scheme. This arrangement is not without its complications. As BBC notes, current restrictions would limit UK defence firms to supplying no more than 35% of the total value of any finished defence product. There is hope, though, that this cap might be raised during the upcoming negotiations—a point of contention, especially for France, which is reportedly keen to limit the involvement of non-EU companies in EU-backed projects.
British ministers are eager to see a deal concluded within weeks, aiming to allow their companies to take part in the first round of bids, with applications due by the end of November 2025. Nineteen of the 27 EU countries have already applied for the loans, which are expected to be issued in early 2026. Poland stands to receive the largest share at €43.7 billion, followed by Romania, Hungary, and France, each with substantial allocations. The UK government, for its part, has welcomed the opening of talks, stating that it is in the interests of both sides to "bring together our unique capabilities and expertise to make Europe a safer, more secure, and more prosperous place."
Yet, as with most things in the post-Brexit era, the devil is in the details. The EU is demanding that the UK (and Canada) pay an entry fee to participate, and negotiations are expected to focus on the maximum contribution British firms can make to the projects. Defence Secretary John Healey has publicly stated that the UK is willing to pay its "fair share" to access the scheme, but he also wants Britain to "have a say" in the programmes and to retain intellectual property rights. Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister responsible for EU relations, has made clear his desire for a deal that allows British firms to compete from the outset, emphasizing the importance of rigorous but achievable timetables.
According to site.btaEU, the European Commission will lead the negotiations, but any final agreements will require approval from the European Parliament. The SAFE programme is not limited to EU member states alone. In a nod to the broader security challenges facing Europe, countries seeking EU membership or considered key security partners—such as Ukraine, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland—are also eligible under the same terms. Canada, too, is in the mix, hoping to secure access for its own defence industry.
The SAFE scheme is designed to allow countries with higher borrowing costs to benefit from the EU’s favorable credit rating, making it easier to invest in much-needed military upgrades. The loans can only be used for joint projects, requiring at least two participating countries—one of which must be an EU member or an eligible partner. This collaborative approach is intended to foster interoperability, economies of scale, and a unified European defence market, all while reducing duplication and inefficiency.
But while the technical negotiations grind on, the political context cannot be ignored. As Euractiv reports, the UK’s approach to the talks is emblematic of a broader, incremental reset in EU-UK relations. Labour’s Nick Thomas-Symonds has been in Brussels meeting officials, pushing forward on not just defence but also food standards, youth mobility, and emissions trading. However, Prime Minister Keir Starmer remains deeply cautious about any moves that might be seen as reversing Brexit. He has ruled out rejoining the single market, customs union, or freedom of movement, warning that even modest steps toward Brussels could be "electoral suicide" in a country still wrestling with the aftershocks of its EU departure.
This caution has not gone unnoticed at home or abroad. Pro-European Labour backbenchers have criticized the government for what they see as a lack of parliamentary scrutiny and ambition. MP Stella Creasy, for example, recently lambasted her own party for dismantling the House of Commons committee that might have scrutinized the new EU relationship. Meanwhile, EU partners remain pragmatic but wary. When listing key partners for deeper ties, the EU’s focus is often elsewhere—on Mexico, Mercosur, or India—rather than on Britain, whose Brexit wounds still sting on both sides of the Channel.
Despite these tensions, the SAFE talks are seen as a practical way to cooperate where interests align, without reopening old wounds. The UK’s participation is viewed as a win-win: British companies gain access to lucrative contracts, the EU benefits from British expertise and industrial capacity, and both sides strengthen their collective security in a dangerous world. As BBC points out, the UK government believes that "bringing together our unique capabilities and expertise" is essential for a safer, more prosperous Europe—a sentiment echoed, albeit cautiously, by their EU counterparts.
Of course, none of this is guaranteed. The negotiations will be complex, with each side seeking to protect its own interests. The entry fee, contribution limits, and intellectual property rights are just a few of the sticking points. And any deal struck will still need to pass muster with the European Parliament, where political dynamics can be unpredictable.
Still, the willingness to talk—however incremental—signals a recognition that Europe’s security cannot be managed in silos. The SAFE scheme, with its vast budget and ambitious goals, is a test case for whether old rivals can become new partners in the face of shared threats. As the talks unfold in the coming weeks, all eyes will be on Brussels and London to see if pragmatism, rather than politics, will prevail.
The SAFE negotiations may not make for splashy headlines, but in a world where security is never guaranteed, the quiet work of compromise and cooperation could prove decisive for Europe’s future.