THE Romans called it ‘mos maiorum’, an unwritten rule or code of behaviour, an ancestral custom which was followed automatically and unquestioningly.

Tom Stevenson, who writes on defence matters, says England has a mos maiorum when it comes to military matters.

It boils down to being militaristic, unthinkingly involved in war, taking a lead role if possible, spending big. They can’t resist it.

Starmer was at it again last week in Munich. Britain would be “at the centre” of European defence. Really?

Linzi McLaren: We may have peace, but have mindsets really changed?

He announced he would send Britain’s carrier strike force to the Arctic and “high north”. Presumably that’s if the aircraft carrier’s propellor shaft doesn’t fail again.

Back from Munich, he hinted that he may accelerate defence spending. There were suggestions it might reach 3% of GDP by 2029, instead of the planned 2.5%, though the odds are he won’t be around then.

The cost of that is variously estimated at £14-17 billion extra. No indication of where the money might come from.

Stevenson points out that calls to re-arm are part of the perennial struggle between generals, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Treasury.

The military men always want more money for fancier equipment, more personnel, and, with their friends in the media, constantly manufacture or exaggerate threats to Britain, sometimes quite preposterously.

For example, Lord Robertson, former Labour MP and later NATO secretary-general, who led the 2025 Strategic Defence Review, identified “a deadly quartet of nations increasingly working together: China, Russia, North Korea and Iran”. It was a sort of updated version of George W Bush’s “axis of evil”.

As Stevenson says: “If this is the threat justifying rearmament in Britain, it is the stuff of crackpot fantasy. A Russian army that cannot seize Kharkhiv (70 miles from its border) is obviously not an existential threat to Britain. The only conceivable war between the UK and China, Iran or North Korea would be an expeditionary war chosen by the UK itself.”

In fact Britain is quite secure, with no threat of invasion or even attack, despite claims to the contrary.

Strategically it resembles Spain and Portugal but nevertheless has Europe’s largest military budget – the fifth largest in the world.

That’s partly because of its nuclear deterrent, which it can’t use without America’s say so, but which Starmer plans to expand.

In reality, compared to the big boys like the US and China, Britain is a tiddler. It goes for prestige over efficacy.

The US Marine Corps is 30% larger than Britain’s entire conventional forces and has 50% more aircraft.

So what has all this got to do with you, a spectator?

You don’t normally read here about the ins and outs of British politics or budgetary expenditure because it has nothing to do with you. You can’t and don’t elect anyone who has a say in the matter.

However, you will be affected by Starmer’s plans.

Increasing military expenditure for no good reason other than prestige or anxiety to do America’s bidding, as Britain is always keen to do – think Iraq and Afghanistan – increases your taxes, maybe by as much as 1.5p in the pound, and takes money away from health, education and welfare.

It’s the old question: guns or butter? That’s the choice. Britain can’t do both.

You can only hope the British Treasury wins its struggle with the MoD and persuades the government not to raise taxes and certainly not to borrow to pay for increased defence spending.

There’s also a knock-on effect which may skew the budget in the south, if the sustained pressure on the Irish government from England’s military establishment and armchair generals in English think tanks works.

Increasingly, in certain Irish newspapers, you find articles quoting people from bodies like the Royal United Services Institute and Chatham House saying Ireland is piggy-backing or “free-loading” on Britain’s defence capability.

Patrick Murphy: Taoiseach and new president are on a collision course over neutralityOpens in new window

All kinds of outlandish scenarios are described, including one by a former rear admiral, now a mayoral candidate for the Reform party, who asked what could Ireland do if a Russian warship off the west coast fired missiles at Britain?

As if. The real question is why an Irish newspaper printed this drivel.

Nevertheless, the attempts to bully and coerce Dublin into increasing military expenditure will grow, especially with Ireland’s presidency of the EU approaching in the summer.

At least Dublin had a dry run when drones were flown at sea off the capital when Zelenskyy was flying to Ireland in December. The government says it’ll be suitably equipped to deal with such eventualities by the summer.

Unfortunately there’s a growing element in the Irish FFG government anxious to play along with the big boys in the EU and turn away from Ireland’s mos maiorum which, in contrast to Britain’s, is neutrality.

If you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article and would like to submit a Letter to the Editor to be considered for publication, please click here.

Letters to the Editor are invited on any subject. They should be authenticated with a full name, address and a daytime telephone number. Pen names are not allowed.

© The Irish News