During 2015 Prime Minister Cameron found himself under intense domestic and international pressure over his apparent reluctance to maintain United Kingdom defence spending at the NATO target level of 2 per cent of GDP. Most commentators attributed this reluctance to the inevitability of defence cuts if the government wished to meet its deficit reduction targets. However, the aftermath of the general election saw a sudden decision to maintain UK defence spending at the NATO target level. This u-turn is one of the more curious episodes in recent British defence policy. In this article we explore the reasons why, at a time of continuing cuts and austerity measures and against all the political signals, a decision was made to meet the 2 per cent target, and what this means for the UK's defence policy. In doing so, we analyse why most commentators assumed that defence cuts were inevitable, the domestic and international factors that explain the government's apparent u-turn and what this revised defence budget settlement meant for the new 2015 National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review.

As the pro-Brexit and pro-Remain campaigns approach maximum velocity in the run-up to the in/out referendum on British membership of the European Union scheduled for 23 June 2016, vociferous debate continues over a range of critical issues. Few have been more hotly debated, along with the migrant crisis and the UK's economy, than the future of the UK's national security. Indeed, ever since David Cameron returned from Europe with his new deal, there has been something of a 'blizzard' 1 of claims and counter-claims concerning whether Britain's international status and ability to respond to existential threats, including the rise of the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and resurgent Russian nationalism, would be undermined by departure from the EU. 2 Those in the 'Remain' campaign essentially argue that leaving the EU would 'threaten' the UK's 'economic and national security'. 3 This was precisely the language used in a notable public letter to the Daily Telegraph from former chiefs of the armed services, claiming that Europe faces a series of 'grave security challenges' and that the UK is in a 'stronger' position to deal with them from inside the EU. 4 Those making up the 'Leave' campaign have argued the opposite, accusing Mr Cameron and their other opponents of egregious 'scaremongering' and 'Project Fear' tactics that exaggerate national security and economic risks if the UK were to exit the EU. 5 The UK's national security, then, is a central theme in the UK's debate over membership of the EU. One of the most important, but often overlooked, * The authors are grateful to Benjamin Kienzle for his comments on an earlier version of this article and to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions. 1 Jon Hay, 'The Brexit fight is on: look to the big issues', Global Capital, 2 Feb. 2016, http://www.globalcapital. com/article/wbf49lhy8xxc/the-brexit-fight-is-on-look-to-the-big-issues. (Unless otherwise noted at point of citation, all URLs cited in this article were accessible on 6 March 2016.) 2 See e.g. Nick Witney, Brexit to nowhere: the foreign policy consequences of 'out' (European Council on Foreign Relations, Nov. 2015),

No abstract

The removal of discriminatory public procurement has presented a major policy issue for the European Community in the move towards the 1992 Single European Market. Considers three questions: why have governments traditionally adopted “buy national” purchasing policies and what are the potential benefits associated with a single market for EC public procurement?; which policies have the EC adopted to liberalize public contracting?; and how effective is the Community′s new public procurement regime?