Canada has joined a major European Union defense fund. The move, announced Monday by the office of Prime Minister Mark Carney, allows Canadian defense companies access to a 150 billion euro EU loan program called Security Action for Europe, or SAFE.
Canada is the first non-EU country to gain access.
In a strictly economics/geopolitical view: It’s a loan program, so long term it is net positive on interest alone. If the money is used to procure eu-made equipment, as is implied, it will bring manufacturing to EU and finance European R&D as well (where not säl of it will be used in only military applications)
Short term it might affect the speed of rearmament which would be bad in an armed conflict. On the other hand, a bigger market will allow bigger investments, which might add production capacity sooner, so it might not add as much time as feared.
In short, it seems to achieve what the tariffs what touted to accomplish without all the drama and negatives associated with tariffs.
Morally it depends on your opinion of a states right to defend itself.
Thank you for the response! I’m not sure of the reason for the negative reaction to the question, but I was curious to see whether time had shifted opinion on non-EU arms manufacturers being allowed to benefit from the fund seeing as the prevailing sentiment some months ago seemed to be that it was a good thing that non-EU manufacturers were excluded.
The negative reactions might be because your wording, to me, is a bit flame batey, as if this is a given negative.
As for non-EU manufacturer being able to invest in production equipment Europe might need if push come to shove on places not easily destroyed by the assumed enemy producing European designs? And in the process incentivise other countries to buy non-american equipment?
If a good chunk of the global military complex seems about to change supplier, I’d bet big on getting to be picked as the supplier of choice!
In a strictly economics/geopolitical view: It’s a loan program, so long term it is net positive on interest alone. If the money is used to procure eu-made equipment, as is implied, it will bring manufacturing to EU and finance European R&D as well (where not säl of it will be used in only military applications) Short term it might affect the speed of rearmament which would be bad in an armed conflict. On the other hand, a bigger market will allow bigger investments, which might add production capacity sooner, so it might not add as much time as feared.
In short, it seems to achieve what the tariffs what touted to accomplish without all the drama and negatives associated with tariffs.
Morally it depends on your opinion of a states right to defend itself.
Thank you for the response! I’m not sure of the reason for the negative reaction to the question, but I was curious to see whether time had shifted opinion on non-EU arms manufacturers being allowed to benefit from the fund seeing as the prevailing sentiment some months ago seemed to be that it was a good thing that non-EU manufacturers were excluded.
The negative reactions might be because your wording, to me, is a bit flame batey, as if this is a given negative.
As for non-EU manufacturer being able to invest in production equipment Europe might need if push come to shove on places not easily destroyed by the assumed enemy producing European designs? And in the process incentivise other countries to buy non-american equipment?
If a good chunk of the global military complex seems about to change supplier, I’d bet big on getting to be picked as the supplier of choice!
Fair enough; not my intention with the wording - I’m also generally in favour.