The Fishing-Defense Nexus: France's Opposition to UK-Canada Inclusion in EU Defense Framework

The recent German-led initiative to include the United Kingdom and Canada in the European Union's ambitious €150 billion defense procurement scheme has encountered significant resistance from France, highlighting the complex interplay between security cooperation and post-Brexit relations.

France's stance, explicitly linking UK participation to concessions on fishing rights, represents a multifaceted strategic calculation that merges security concerns with economic interests.

This development occurs against the backdrop of Europe's most substantial defense reinvestment since the Cold War, as the continent responds to growing security challenges from Russia's continued aggression in Ukraine and uncertainty surrounding the transatlantic alliance.

Historical Context of EU-UK Defense Relations Post-Brexit

The Fracturing of Integrated Defense Structures

The United Kingdom's departure from the European Union fundamentally altered the landscape of European security cooperation.

Prior to Brexit, Britain was deeply embedded in the EU's defense architecture, serving as a leading contributor to both policy formulation and operational capabilities.

The UK's military expertise, intelligence assets, and substantial defense industry represented crucial components of European security planning. However, Brexit created an institutional void that continues to shape security dynamics across the continent.

When the UK completed its departure from the EU in December 2020, it simultaneously exited the bloc's formal defense coordination mechanisms.

This departure occurred at a particularly inopportune moment as European security faced mounting challenges from multiple directions.

Russia's threatening posture toward Eastern Europe, growing concerns about China's global ambitions, and instability across the Mediterranean all demanded cohesive responses at precisely the moment when European defense cooperation was experiencing institutional disruption.

The timing created a strategic paradox: the security environment demanded greater coordination precisely when political frameworks for such cooperation were being dismantled.

Brexit negotiations themselves revealed the complexity of disentangling defense relationships.

While trade and economic matters dominated headlines, security cooperation represented a distinct challenge requiring separate frameworks and agreements.

Both sides recognized the mutual benefit of continued collaboration, yet the political imperative to demonstrate that Brexit had meaningful consequences made seamless security cooperation difficult to achieve

. The resulting arrangements created a patchwork of agreements rather than the comprehensive integration that had previously existed.

The Recurring Leverage of Fishing Rights

Fishing rights have repeatedly emerged as a contentious issue in post-Brexit negotiations, with implications extending far beyond the economic value of the industry itself. During Brexit negotiations, access to British waters became a symbolic issue representing sovereignty and national control.

For coastal EU states, particularly France, maintaining access to these historically shared fishing grounds represented both economic necessity and political imperative.

The post-Brexit dispute over access to UK fishing grounds has repeatedly influenced broader negotiations.

In May 2021, France explicitly linked a potential EU-UK financial services deal to fisheries access, demonstrating an early precedent for using cross-sectoral leverage.

This dispute escalated to the point where both France and Britain deployed patrol vessels to the Channel Island of Jersey as French trawlers staged protests over access restrictions. A French source familiar with the negotiations confirmed: "We've made a link between the two," establishing a pattern of using fishing rights as diplomatic leverage

This tactical approach has historical consistency in France's negotiating strategy.

By identifying areas where the UK seeks cooperation and conditioning that cooperation on concessions in politically sensitive domains like fishing, France has maximized its leverage in post-Brexit relations.

This approach has proven effective precisely because it targets asymmetric interdependencies – areas where the UK needs EU cooperation more than vice versa3.

The Security Action for Europe (SAFE) Initiative and German Leadership

Strategic Foundations of the €150 Billion Defense Fund

The European Commission's Security Action for Europe (SAFE) fund represents Europe's most ambitious defense financing initiative to date.

With €150 billion in cheap loans dedicated to defense spending, the program aims to address critical capability gaps while strengthening the European defense industrial base. This initiative emerges from growing recognition that Europe must increase its military self-sufficiency in response to Russia's ongoing aggression in Ukraine and uncertainty surrounding future US security commitments

The SAFE initiative incorporates a "buy European" clause, requiring that funds be spent on defense systems from EU-linked suppliers or Ukraine.

This provision aims to strengthen European defense industrial capacity while ensuring strategic autonomy. However, this restriction also represents a significant challenge for non-EU countries with substantial defense industries, including the UK, US, and Turkey, who are excluded unless special agreements are negotiated.

The timing of this initiative is not coincidental. The European Commission and High Representative presented their White Paper on European Defence – Readiness 2030 in March 2025, establishing a comprehensive framework for enhancing European defense capabilities.

The White Paper identifies critical capability gaps and proposes that Member States "urgently pool their efforts to address these gaps, including through a set of Defence Projects of Common European Interest".

This collaborative approach aims to generate economies of scale, improve delivery timelines, and boost the production capacity of the European defense industry.

Germany's Push for UK and Canadian Participation

Germany has emerged as the primary advocate for including the UK and Canada in the SAFE initiative.

This position reflects Berlin's pragmatic recognition of both countries' substantial defense industrial capabilities and their strategic importance as NATO allies. At a meeting of EU ambassadors on April 4, 2025, the German-led effort secured support from at least a third of EU member states, demonstrating significant but not unanimous backing for this inclusive approach.

Germany's stance represents a broader strategic vision emphasizing transatlantic cooperation and NATO coherence over exclusive European frameworks.

From the German perspective, effective European security requires leveraging all available capabilities, including those from key non-EU allies.

This position aligns with Germany's historical preference for inclusive security architecture that bridges EU and NATO frameworks rather than creating competing structures1.

The German initiative specifically focuses on incorporating the UK and Canada into the common weapons purchasing scheme component of the broader SAFE program.

This approach reflects a recognition that defense procurement represents a domain where cooperation could deliver immediate practical benefits without requiring more complex political agreements.

By focusing on procurement rather than broader policy integration, Germany has attempted to create a pragmatic pathway for cooperation that might sidestep more contentious political issues1.

French Opposition: The Fishing-Defense Linkage Strategy

Strategic Calculations Behind France's Position

France's opposition to UK participation in the SAFE initiative without concessions on fishing rights represents a sophisticated strategic calculation.

During the April 4 EU ambassadors' meeting, the French representative was "quite vocal" in rejecting London's participation, warning that UK inclusion "would cause delays" to implementing the scheme

This position reflects France's consistent approach to post-Brexit relations, which has emphasized that departure from the EU must have tangible consequences rather than allowing selective benefits.

President Emmanuel Macron has positioned France as the guardian of EU principles, insisting that non-member states cannot enjoy full benefits without corresponding obligations.

From this perspective, allowing UK access to the substantial financial resources and industrial opportunities of the SAFE initiative without securing concessions in other areas would undermine the integrity of the post-Brexit framework

. By connecting defense cooperation to fishing rights, France creates a situation where the UK must decide whether defense integration is valuable enough to justify compromise in other domains2.

This approach serves multiple strategic objectives simultaneously. First, it maximizes France's leverage in fishing negotiations by linking them to an area where UK interests are substantial.

Second, it reinforces the principle that post-Brexit relations must be comprehensive rather than allowing the UK to "cherry-pick" favorable arrangements.

Third, it enhances France's position within EU decision-making by demonstrating its ability to shape the terms of external partnerships

The Economic and Political Significance of Fishing Rights

The economic value of fishing rights is relatively modest compared to defense cooperation, yet their political significance far exceeds their direct economic impact.

For coastal communities in northwestern France, access to British waters represents not merely economic opportunity but cultural heritage and community identity.

These communities exert disproportionate political influence, making fishing rights a domestic political imperative for French leadership4.

Jessica Rosencrantz, Sweden's EU affairs minister, confirmed the centrality of fishing rights in a March 2025 interview, stating that EU member governments were "unlikely to sign off on a security deal with the U.K. unless negotiations are also resolved on other 'sensitive' issues, including access to British waters for European fishing fleets".

This statement reveals that France is not alone in connecting these seemingly disparate policy areas, though it has been the most vocal advocate for this linkage.

The specific fishing disputes center on access conditions for European vessels in UK waters and the allocation of quotas.

Under the post-Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement, EU fishing rights in UK waters are being gradually reduced, with a transition period ending in mid-2026.

This approaching deadline creates urgency for securing favorable terms before the formal renegotiation

French officials appear to be leveraging the UK's desire for defense cooperation as a means to secure more advantageous fishing arrangements before this critical juncture.

UK's Position and Stakes in the Negotiation

Strategic Defense Interests and Industrial Implications

The UK finds itself in a challenging position, navigating between its desire for continued influence in European security and its post-Brexit assertion of sovereignty. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has made resetting UK-EU relations a priority, seeking a "comprehensive security and defense pact" that would position Britain as a central player in European security despite its departure from the EU.

This approach recognizes that while Brexit changed the institutional relationship, geographic reality still places the UK at the heart of European security calculations.

For the UK defense industry, exclusion from the €150 billion SAFE initiative would represent a significant setback.

British defense firms have historically been deeply integrated into European supply chains and collaborative projects.

Exclusion from this substantial funding stream would not only reduce market opportunities but could potentially accelerate the reorientation of European defense procurement away from British suppliers2.

This risk is particularly acute given the "buy European" clause embedded in the SAFE initiative.

British officials have expressed frustration at what they perceive as political maneuvers overshadowing strategic necessity.

A senior UK government source characterized the situation bluntly: "Europe needs Britain's defense industry a bit more than the French need a few extra fish," calling the French behavior "petty"2.

This statement reflects the UK's belief that shared security interests should override narrower economic considerations, particularly given the deteriorating security environment in Europe's eastern neighborhood.

Domestic Pressures and Fishing Industry Concerns

The UK fishing industry has expressed significant concern about becoming a "bargaining chip" in defense negotiations.

During a meeting of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Chris Ranford, head of the Cornish Fish Producers Association, urged resistance to EU pressure, characterizing it as "a form of intimidation".

This sentiment reflects widespread concern within the UK fishing industry that their interests might be sacrificed for broader diplomatic objectives.

British parliamentarians across party lines have voiced opposition to trading fishing access for defense cooperation.

Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, noted that "the fishing sector has frequently been utilized as a pawn - a bargaining tool. It would be unfortunate if that were to occur once more".

Similarly, Caroline Voaden, Liberal Democrat MP for Totnes, asserted: "We must not permit the defense of Europe and the safety of our nation to be negotiated at the expense of the fishing industry".

These statements reflect domestic political constraints that limit the UK government's flexibility in negotiations.

The UK farming minister, Daniel Zeichner, has publicly maintained that there is "no connection" between fishing rights and defense talks, describing such linkage as mere speculation.

This position allows the government to maintain negotiating leverage while reassuring domestic constituencies.

However, the convergence of multiple sources confirming French linkage of these issues suggests that regardless of public statements, UK negotiators must navigate this interconnection in practice.

The Broader European Defense Landscape

EU Defense Autonomy Initiatives and NATO Compatibility

The SAFE initiative represents one component of a broader European effort to enhance defense capabilities and strategic autonomy.

The EU's March 2025 White Paper on European Defence identifies critical capability gaps and emphasizes the need for collaborative solutions.

These priority areas include "land capabilities, air and missile defense, naval capabilities, space capabilities, cyber capabilities, and strategic enablers and critical infrastructure protection".

This comprehensive approach reflects recognition that addressing these gaps requires coordinated investment beyond individual national capacities.

The White Paper explicitly acknowledges the complementary relationship between EU defense initiatives and NATO commitments.

It states that "EU support to collaborative capability development will thus facilitate EU Member States in NATO to deliver on their capability targets more quickly and economically and with enhanced interoperability from the outset".

This framing attempts to address concerns that European defense autonomy might undermine NATO cohesion, positioning EU initiatives as complementary rather than competitive with transatlantic defense cooperation.

The European approach to defense autonomy balances multiple objectives: reducing dependence on external suppliers (particularly the United States), creating economies of scale through collaborative procurement, and developing indigenous technological capabilities.

The SAFE initiative's "buy European" clause exemplifies this approach, directing substantial resources toward strengthening the European defense industrial base while excluding non-member states from direct participation without special agreements25.

Parallel European Defense Initiatives

The SAFE initiative exists alongside other European defense cooperation frameworks. The European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI), led by Germany, represents another significant effort to enhance European air and missile defense capabilities.

These parallel initiatives demonstrate the multifaceted nature of European defense cooperation, with different frameworks addressing specific capability requirements or regional priorities.

These various initiatives create a complex institutional landscape that non-EU countries must navigate to maintain defense cooperation with European partners.

The UK's potential exclusion from the SAFE initiative would not eliminate all avenues for defense cooperation, as bilateral and NATO frameworks would remain available.

However, it would reduce British influence over European defense industrial priorities and limit access to substantial funding streams at a time when defense budgets are expanding significantly across the continent2

The proliferation of defense cooperation frameworks also creates coordination challenges. Without careful alignment, these various initiatives risk creating incompatible systems, duplicative investments, or capability gaps at the seams between frameworks.

These risks are heightened when key security partners like the UK are excluded from major initiatives, potentially reducing interoperability precisely when operational cooperation is most essential5.

Future Scenarios: Resolving the Defense-Fishing Nexus

Scenario 1: Comprehensive Compromise

In this scenario, negotiations produce a balanced agreement addressing both defense cooperation and fishing rights.

The UK secures participation in the SAFE initiative, gaining access to funding and procurement opportunities for its defense industry.

In exchange, the UK offers targeted concessions on fishing rights, potentially extending current access arrangements or adjusting quota allocations in specific fishing grounds important to French fleets.

This compromise would likely be packaged as part of a broader UK-EU security and defense pact, potentially finalized at the May 2025 summit mentioned in the sources3.

This scenario represents an optimal outcome for broader European security, allowing full utilization of UK defense industrial capabilities while establishing a sustainable framework for post-Brexit fisheries management.

It would require both sides to prioritize strategic interests over symbolic political victories, with each claiming success in their priority areas.

For the UK, this approach would require acknowledging the reality that post-Brexit independence comes with tradeoffs, while France would need to calibrate its demands to achieve better fishing terms without derailing defense cooperation entirely.

Implementation challenges would include defining precise terms for fishing access, establishing governance mechanisms for UK participation in the SAFE initiative, and managing domestic political reactions in both countries.

Success would depend on skillful diplomacy and a mutual recognition that security cooperation and economic interests should be addressed holistically rather than in isolation.

Scenario 2: Continued Blockage and Alternative Pathways

If negotiations fail to produce a compromise, France may maintain its opposition to UK participation in the SAFE initiative.

In this scenario, the UK would likely pursue alternative approaches to European defense cooperation, including enhanced bilateral arrangements with supportive EU members like Germany and increased emphasis on NATO frameworks.

These alternatives would provide partial mitigation but would not replicate the industrial opportunities or funding access available through the SAFE initiative

The consequences of this scenario would include increased fragmentation of European defense efforts, reduced opportunities for economies of scale, and potential interoperability challenges.

UK defense firms would likely accelerate their pivots toward non-European markets, potentially reducing long-term integration of defense industrial capabilities.

For France, short-term gains in fishing negotiations would come at the cost of reduced defense industrial cooperation with the UK and potential strain in bilateral relations.

This scenario would likely intensify political tensions, with the UK characterizing French opposition as prioritizing parochial interests over collective security.

The German-led coalition supporting UK inclusion would face difficult choices between accepting French opposition or considering ways to establish parallel arrangements outside the formal SAFE framework to maintain cooperation with the UK

Scenario 3: Sectoral Agreement with Limited UK Participation

A middle-ground scenario would involve negotiating a limited form of UK participation in specific sectors of the SAFE initiative alongside modest adjustments to fishing arrangements.

This approach would avoid all-or-nothing outcomes by creating differentiated levels of participation.

For example, the UK might secure participation in air and missile defense projects where its industrial capabilities are particularly valued, while accepting exclusion from other areas.

This scenario would require creative institutional design to overcome the binary in/out nature of the current debate.

It would need to balance French insistence on meaningful consequences for Brexit against practical recognition of areas where UK participation delivers substantial mutual benefits. The resulting arrangement would be complex but potentially more stable than comprehensive solutions that might prove politically unsustainable

Implementation would require detailed technical negotiations to define precisely which components of the SAFE initiative would be open to UK participation and under what conditions.

Success would depend on identifying areas where mutual interest in cooperation is sufficiently strong to overcome political resistance.

This scenario represents a pragmatic recognition that post-Brexit relations may require bespoke arrangements rather than uniform integration or separation.

Scenario 4: Delayed Resolution Pending Broader Rearrangement

This scenario envisions postponing a comprehensive solution until after the 2026 renegotiation of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement's fisheries provisions. In the interim, limited temporary arrangements might be established to enable case-by-case UK participation in urgent defense projects.

This approach would acknowledge the political difficulty of resolving both issues simultaneously while preserving the possibility of more comprehensive future integration

The advantage of this scenario is avoiding premature concessions on either side before the scheduled fisheries renegotiation.

It would allow both parties to evaluate the evolving security environment and defense industrial landscape before committing to permanent arrangements.

The disadvantage is continued uncertainty for defense industries and potential delays in addressing critical capability gaps

This scenario would require balancing the urgency of defense cooperation against the political calendar of fisheries negotiations.

Success would depend on establishing sufficient interim arrangements to maintain industrial cooperation while preserving leverage for both sides in the eventual comprehensive negotiation.

It represents a recognition that timing sometimes constitutes a critical variable in complex negotiations spanning multiple policy domains.

Strategic Implications and Recommendations

For European Security Architecture

The dispute over UK participation in the SAFE initiative highlights broader questions about post-Brexit European security architecture.

The fundamental challenge is balancing the practical necessity of including the UK in European defense efforts against the political imperative of demonstrating that EU membership carries meaningful privileges.

This tension will persist beyond the current dispute, shaping European security arrangements for years to come25.

Resolving this tension requires institutional innovation. Rather than forcing binary choices between full inclusion and complete exclusion, European security frameworks should develop graduated participation models that align privileges with contributions.

This approach would allow non-member states to participate where their capabilities add significant value while preserving distinctive benefits for full EU membership.

The White Paper on European Defence explicitly acknowledges the value of "enabling partnerships"

This concept should be developed into concrete mechanisms for incorporating non-EU contributions while respecting the political boundaries established by Brexit.

Success will require moving beyond zero-sum approaches toward frameworks that maximize collective security benefits while respecting different institutional affiliations.

For Transatlantic Relations

The debate over UK participation carries significant implications for transatlantic relations. If European defense initiatives develop in ways that exclude key NATO allies like the UK and Canada, they risk creating parallel and potentially competing structures rather than complementary capabilities.

This outcome would undermine the collective defense capacity that remains essential given continuing Russian aggression and broader security challenges

Resolving the current dispute in ways that facilitate UK participation would send a positive signal about European commitment to transatlantic security cohesion despite Brexit-related tensions.

Conversely, permanent exclusion would reinforce narratives about European protectionism and potentially reduce American confidence in European security initiatives.

These broader transatlantic implications should inform negotiating positions on both sides

The optimal approach would integrate non-EU NATO allies like the UK and Canada into European defense initiatives while maintaining distinctive benefits for EU membership.

This balanced approach would strengthen transatlantic security ties while respecting the reality that EU membership carries special privileges.

The German-led initiative represents a step in this direction, though its success remains uncertain given French opposition1.

Conclusion: Beyond Transactional Diplomacy

The current dispute over UK participation in the SAFE initiative exemplifies the challenges of post-Brexit European security cooperation.

What might appear as a straightforward question of defense industrial collaboration has become entangled with fishing rights, revealing the complex interplay between security imperatives and economic interests.

This intersection of seemingly unrelated policy domains reflects the inherently political nature of security cooperation in contemporary Europe

Resolving this dispute will require moving beyond purely transactional approaches toward strategic compromise.

Both the UK and EU have fundamental interests in maintaining robust defense cooperation despite the institutional complications introduced by Brexit.

Similarly, sustainable fisheries management requires arrangements that balance sovereignty claims against the reality of shared maritime resources.

Finding this balance will test diplomatic creativity on both sides

The coming months will prove decisive for the future of UK-EU defense relations. With a potential security and defense pact targeted for the May 2025 summit, negotiators face significant pressure to resolve the current impasse.

Success will depend on recognizing that neither side can achieve all its objectives, and that compromise on specific issues serves the broader strategic interest in maintaining European security cooperation during a period of heightened threat.

The fishing-defense nexus thus represents more than a tactical negotiating linkage—it embodies the fundamental challenge of maintaining practical cooperation amid institutional separation.

How European leaders navigate this challenge will significantly influence the continent's security architecture for years to come, determining whether post-Brexit relations can transcend zero-sum calculations to preserve essential security collaboration despite institutional divisions