We all agree that the threats to our nation and the European continent are growing, and that the UK and its European NATO allies need to do ‘more of the heavy lifting’ against the Russian threat. That’s why it’s so profoundly disappointing that this week’s UK/EU ‘Security and Defence Partnership’ amounts to little more than a talking shop.

There are 127 examples in the 11 page document where an agreed area of defence co-operation amounts simply to some form of dialogue – with 127 commitments to ‘consult’; ‘collaborate’; ‘exchange information’; ‘share’ etc. But dialogue won’t boost our deterrence against the Russian threat.

With so little by way of tangible examples of how the deal will actually make us safer, Defence Secretary John Healey, speaking in Defence oral questions on Monday - the same day as the EU summit – had to pretend that a major new development for the UK Defence industry was somehow derived from the new EU agreement. He pointed to a new gun barrel factory opening in Telford and said: “this is what resetting Britain’s relationship with Europe and stepping up on European security looks like”.

To be clear, I welcome the new gun barrel factory – but that shouldn’t come as a surprise; the whole thing was my idea. The fact we have a new plant in Telford, restoring the UK’s sovereign large calibre gun barrel manufacturing capability, is nothing to do with the EU.

Rather, it has everything to do with my decision as Defence Procurement Minister, under the previous Government, to procure the RCH 155 artillery system from German arms-manufacturer Rheinmetall.

Amidst the many lessons from the war in Ukraine, it’s clear that artillery remains critical. However, we gifted our AS90 howitzers to Ukraine, and I not only felt RCH was a high quality replacement, but that we should look at every possible avenue to accelerate its timeline into service with the British army.

When I asked our industrial partners what could be done to go faster, they said that capacity constraints in Germany meant we could only accelerate if we set up a UK production line.

Given we already manufacture the Boxer armoured vehicle providing the base for the RCH gun, I jumped at this opportunity to reshore an important manufacturing capability that we had lost – insisting that this included the ability to once again make large calibre gun barrels for tanks and artillery. I am delighted Labour chose to continue this project and make it part of the Trinity House agreement with Germany, but it’s got zilch to do with this week’s UK/EU pact.

There are many other examples like RCH where we cooperate with our European partners to deliver major military programmes – from making our Typhoon fighter jets with Italy, Spain and Germany; to complex weapons production at Anglo-French MBDA; to our ambitious joint working with Poland on Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD).

These are examples of where we have boosted the defence of our nation by collaborating with European nations - but in every case we participated as sovereign states. We didn’t give up fishing rights for any of them.

Of course, the pact may lead to UK firms accessing the EU rearmament fund – but there is nothing definitive as yet. At Defence orals John Healey was only able to say that the pact “opens the door to closer defence industrial collaboration, including potential participation in the EU’s €150 billion SAFE arrangements”. If it’s only a case of ‘potential participation’ why have we already played our biggest negotiating card? After all, nothing matters more to the French in these negotiations than access to our waters. They’ve got that – where’s the defence cash in return?

One cannot help but worry that we will have to pay in to a fund in order to receive such benefit. We’ve played our best cards before getting anything substantive in return.

Above all, if this is a defence pact, how does it actually make us safer? Next time we have to take military action – for example, to bomb terrorist facilities making drones to attack international shipping - will our Typhoons this time be joined by combat aircraft from France, Germany, Italy or Spain?

The fact is we do an extraordinary amount for the Defence of Europe. Our nuclear deterrent patrols the seas 24/7 and is formally offered to the defence of European NATO allies; we have troops in Estonia; and have done more than any other European nation to stand by Ukraine.

We shouldn’t have had to offer such unacceptable terms – from a total surrender on fishing rights to becoming a rule-taker – in order to agree an EU defence pact. No proud maritime nation should easily give up control of its waters. We’ve done that, but it’s not clear that we’ve received anything in return.