Agora - content

The open forum for foreign policy

Blogs

Brexit Britain’s blue economy

by

How can Great Britain, an island nation with a historic presence on the world’s oceans, work to sustainably manage their oceans post-Brexit?

In the face of the overwhelming rise of ecological devastation around the world, our seas need to be managed sustainably, both leading up to and post-Brexit. The past couple of decades has been rife with several ecological disasters and build ups, from billions of gallons of crude oil spilling into waters, to pollution pile-ups ranging in size from microplastics to entire fishing nets. Thus, we have to engage with the idea of a ‘Blue Economy’.

The Blue Economy, as defined by the World Bank, is an economic model ‘designed to promote the sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods and jobs, and ocean ecosystem health’ through multiple different flows of finance and resources. In particular this includes the navigation of oceanic resources such as minerals and biodiversity, of which their mismanagement has had some of the largest impacts on our oceans. This could even consist of tougher regulation on offshore drilling, unsustainable fishing practices such as ghost fishing or deep-sea trawling, or even a ban on microplastics so as to ensure that the resources the ocean provides is protected and able to be used far into the future for both local communities and the national economy.

So far, the UK allegedly made steps to develop a sustainable approach to oceans. Last April, the Environmental Audit Committee stated: “We will look at emerging marine industries, and how the Government can build a sustainable ‘blue’ economy.” Yet, how concrete is this claim in the face of a potentially volatile relationship with other markets after Brexit?

The power of the fishing industry and its scepticism of the rights and quotas could well have an impact on the UK’s ability to achieve these goals. Even prior to Brexit, the fishing industry’s relationship with the other countries was tumultuous, being the source of previous tensions with Spain, and one of the causes of the Cod Wars – a trade war in the North Atlantic with Iceland during the second half of the 20th Century.

The UK boasts the second largest fishing fleet in Europe in terms of output, contributing £775 million in landings (the catches of marine fish landed in foreign or domestics ports) alone in 2015. However, the dropping rate of catch predicted for the future years is estimated to cost the economy millions of pounds as a result of fishery mismanagement.

A potential solution to this is sustainable management of fisheries and oceanic resources as dictated in a Blue Economy. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is one of the largest advocates for sustainable fishing in Europe. They have long advocated, with some notable success, for more sustainable British consumption habits. They have worked to ensure that fish that is caught is from certifiably sustainable sources, which allows for fish stocks to be managed at adequate levels for recovery and accounts for the environmental impacts that the industry may have on the ecological balance. However, the MSC is a not-for-profit organisation, and as such may not actually be that well placed in policy-making sectors to be able to ensure such sustainable policy is implemented in Brexit Britain alone, and it should be approached perhaps with a combination of research and advocacy groups too.

Beyond this, Britain’s Blue Economy also has to deal with issues like mineral exploitation and pollution. This may be difficult for the UK, which has long been one of the largest oil and natural gas producers in Europe. This is slowly changing. As of 2005, British production of oil and natural gas dropped lower than its consumption and, thus, Britain became a net importer of fuel.

Despite the decline in production, the UK government still offers many tax breaks benefiting production of fossil fuels, and was one of the few G20 countries to increase their subsidies in recent years, as reported in a study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Thus, it’s hard to gauge the dedication of the current parliament to a Blue Economy, or even sustainability in general, whilst subsidies for exploration and mineral extraction in our oceans – which can sometimes result in oil spills – continue to be offered.

Britain claims to be dedicating time to establishing a sustainable economy with our oceans, especially given our stake in them; however, the government’s history of ocean management leaves a lot to be desired both domestically and internationally. If the UK hopes to be a world leader on these issues post-Brexit it needs to rectify this immediately and commit in both words and actions to a Blue Economy.

Micheil Page is currently reading an MSc in Global Energy and Climate Policy at SOAS, University of London, specialising in Arctic governance. He is a fellow at the Polar Research and Policy Initiative, and is also one of the Co-Directors of UniSolar, the UK’s first student-led community energy enterprise.

The UK-Japan energy dialogue after Brexit: beyond nuclear?

by

Brexit could bring benefits to the UK energy sector. Theresa May’s cabinet should seize the opportunity to reshape energy cooperation with non-EU partners, including Japan.

Japan and Britain are long-standing trading partners who have enjoyed a history of fruitful cooperation in different sectors. In the energy field, the UK-Japan relations – known as Nichiei Kankei in Japanese – have thrived on nuclear. Collaboration between the two islands began already in the 60s, when the UK supplied Japan’s first commercial power reactor.

But first, why is nuclear so important for London and Tokyo? Historically, nuclear power has represented a core element in both countries’ domestic energy policies and their climate strategies. Nuclear has been an essential energy source to ensure stability and security of supply, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and tackle fuel poverty at national level.

Domestic policies

Japan is notably poor in energy resources and has recently ranked as the least self-sufficient among other developed economies. Nuclear has then helped the Asian nation satisfy its energy needs for decades. In 2011, before the Great East Japan Earthquake which triggered a tsunami causing the meltdown of three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, the country produced up to 30% of its electricity from nuclear.

After having shut down most of its reactors, this figure fell drastically, and nuclear currently provides less than 2 percent of the country’s power. However, it is not a mystery that Prime Minister Shinzō Abe is now betting again on nuclear. The Japanese Ministry for Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) wants to generate between 20 and 22 percent of the nation’s power supply in 2030 from this energy source. This target would require 25 to 30 reactors in operation by that year, experts indicate. In such scenario, Japan would diminish its reliance on rising coal and natural gas imports, but also divert investments for renewable energy generation and technologies.

In the UK, even Whitehall has often shown enthusiasm and been broadly supportive of nuclear especially over the last few years. In October 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron secured the deal with Electricité de France (EDF) for the construction of the heavily-criticised Hinkley Point C plant. Under Theresa May, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has made clear on several occasions that increasing generation from nuclear power is among its top priorities for the years to come. In the next few decades, there are plans to build several new reactors across the country. This includes small modular ones (SMRs), with capacity between 10 and 300 MWe, on which the UK may take the international lead in technology development. According to BEIS data, nuclear generated 21 percent of total electricity in 2017 and it with renewables will account for over 80 percent of total generation in 2050.

Cooperation

Similar domestic policies and objectives have led Japan and the UK to align their positions at the international level. In May 2018, they joined the “Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy” (Nice) coalition, a global alliance championed by the US, supporting nuclear power as a carbon-free source for the future energy systems.

However, as said, both nations consider each other as a strategic partner on nuclear energy. Cooperation in the field spans a wide range of commercial and regulatory areas, including nuclear safety, decontamination, research and development and plant construction. Additionally, in 2012, in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident, former Prime Ministers David Cameron and Yoshihiko Noda formalised the strategic partnership through the launch of bilateral annual nuclear dialogues.

Concurrently, the two countries have developed complementary expertise, paving the way for joint projects and experience sharing in the sector. Interestingly enough, Japan has often looked into British technology for decommissioning and waste management, while the UK has taken guidance from at the Japanese leadership in plant design and construction.

Recently, the Japanese conglomerate Hitachi has taken on the development of the Wyfla power station in Wales, which will consist of two nuclear reactors with a minimum capacity of 2,700 Megawatt (MW). On 4 June 2018, the Business and Energy Secretary Greg Clark announced to the Parliament that the government was considering to co-finance the project with direct investment alongside the Japanese giant and other government agencies. This would represent a return to public funding to nuclear construction in the UK, previously ruled out by government policy for decades. Nevertheless, as of July 2018, it is still unclear what the financial commitment will look like.

The future

As Brexit approaches, should May’s cabinet pursue cooperation in other energy fields? With increasingly cheaper renewables challenging other energy sources, will Nichiei Kanke in the energy sector still rotate around nuclear in the future? In the author’s opinion, nuclear will continue to dominate the Japanese-British cooperation in the sector.

However, after leaving the European Union, the UK should bring clean energy to the centre of its partnership with Japan. Renewables and related technologies are already one of the top priorities of the EU-Japan Energy Dialogue. Japanese energy markets are currently going through a radical phase of liberalisation and renewable energy sources have gained momentum since the Fukushima disaster, as the Asian country aims to increase their share in the energy mix.

Japan has then an interest in investing in decentralised types of energy and can learn from the UK experience with offshore wind and marine energy. On the other side, British companies could find fertile ground for their distributed energy resource, storage, demand-side response and smart energy management solutions. A more diversified energy mix would certainly make the Land of the Rising Sun shine again.

Fabio Orlando is Head of the Energy & Climate Programme at Agora.

The fracking divide: how the UK has become fractured over natural gas matters

by

Despite former Prime Minister David Cameron’s fervent efforts to promote extensive onshore shale gas extraction, the UK fracking industry is struggling to take off seven years after a minor incident triggered by exploration activities near Blackpool. The nation remains divided over this environmentally invasive – but potentially lucrative – project.

What is fracking

Hydraulic fracturing, known as ‘fracking’ refers to the method of extracting unconventional gas reserves from impermeable shale rock. It involves vertical and horizontal drilling – as deep as three kilometres – followed by the insertion of a perforated well casing, through which large volumes of water – containing sand and lubricating fluids – are then injected under high pressure. On the surface, a wellhead is installed to capture the gas released through the process.

The push for fracking

Under Cameron, the Government initiated an ‘All out for Shale’ campaign, vigorously promoting the onshore extraction of shale gas, to increase the UK’s energy self-sufficiency. At the American Fuel and Petrochemicals Manufacturers’ annual conference in March 2018, fracking champion Cameron lamented the ‘painfully slow fracking progress in the UK’ as compared to tens of thousands of wells successfully drilled and exploited in the US over the past decade.

Pro-fracking arguments range from the pressing need to increase the UK’s energy independence, to the overall industrial boost a fracking revolution could lead to. According to Government calculations, fracking would allow the UK to cover its energy needs for the next 50 years (at current consumption levels) if only 10% of the estimated 1300tn cubic feet of gas reserves are extracted. These are enticing figures, that may overshadow any skeptical voices, as they forecast a major step towards energy independence.

Concerns

On the other hand, notable environmental hazards have already been recorded in the US ‘fracking revolution’, and one needn’t venture too far for evidence of impact: in 2011, a minor earthquake was triggered near Blackpool by the activities of shale gas explorer Cuadrilla. After this incident, the company had to wait six years to secure another planning permission at another potential fracking site in Lancashire. Other hazards highlighted by anti-fracking activist movements such as ‘Reclaim the Power’, are the contamination of domestic water supplies through fracking liquids. The communities concerned by this agenda are mostly in Northern England and the Midlands. Beyond the environmental concerns, the fact that these areas are overwhelmingly unspoiled countryside is likely to have motivated its critics.

According to analysis conducted by Friends of the Earth from the Cardiff Business School, over 5000 wells would need to be drilled and fracked between 2021 and 2035 to replace 50% of current gas imports, which would result in the industrialisation of large parts of unspoiled English countryside.

The controversy and uncertainty surrounding fracking has prompted France to ban the activity, and the devolved governments of Wales and Scotland have followed suit. According to Scotland’s Energy Minister Paul Wheelhouse, ‘allowing fracking would undermine the government’s ambitions to deeply cut Scotland’s climate emissions’.

Even at a national level, there are clear divisions. The Cameron government’s eagerness to push for fracking is in stark contrast to the current government’s ‘more neutral’ stance, with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy describing shale gas as a “potential element of the energy mix”.

Myth boosting

One of the most prominent arguments brought forth by fracking defendants is the threat of excessive reliance on Russia to satisfy the UK’s gas needs. Francis Egan, Cuadrilla’s CEO, argues that ‘developing an indigenous source of natural gas is critical for UK energy security, our economy, jobs and the environment.’ On 16 March 2018, The Sun reported that “we are relying on Russia, a hostile power, to heat our homes”.

But how much gas does the UK actually import from Russia and how could a national fracking boom impact incoming flows? According to government statistics, Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments to the UK are a new phenomenon, that account for less than 1% of total gas imports since January 2018 – which is by no means a full-blown reliance on Russian gas.

Although production from the North Sea has been in decline since 2000, most of the UK’s gas imports come via pipelines from the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. In fact, these pipelines accounted for 45% of imports in 2017. LNG shipments, which make up roughly 8% of supplies, hail predominantly from Qatar. Importing gas via pipelines has been proven more cost-efficient than liquifying, shipping and re-gasifying supplies from further afield. Hence, Norwegian imports have increased proportionally to the decline in domestic production, and the necessary costly infrastructure (pipelines) is already in place. Likewise, Professor Jim Watson from the UK Energy Research Centre states that “we might have had more domestic gas through UK fracking, but it might not have been cost-competitive compared with imports”.

To conclude, it is justified to wonder whether the eagerness to imitate the US shale gas boom is clouding the central government’s judgment. Although energy security is vital, not only to a nation’s economic survival, but also to households maintaining comfort during cold winters, the government needs to do some serious myth busting to ensure its aspirations of restored domestic grandeur don’t trump the consideration of environmental hazards.

Caroline Burleigh is Head of the Identities Programme at Agora.

The (Wind)rush to Britain, 70 years on

by

Seventy years after the Empire Windrush completed its historic voyage from Kingston, Jamaica to Tilbury, formal requests for a National Windrush holiday to celebrate the contribution of first generation migrants to British identity and society have yet to be answered.

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the arrival of the ‘Windrush generation’ in England. On 22 June 1948, the ex-troopship Empire Windrush docked at the Tilbury port in Essex. On board were around 500 men and women from various Caribbean islands seeking a new life in Great Britain. Although West Indians had been living in Britain before 1948, the Windrush wave is recognised as the most significant one, paving the way for numerous newcomers from all over the Empire. The symbolism of this migration, of the Empire Windrush arrivals, transcends West Indian identity and represents something much larger: post-war migration from the British colonies to Britain.

In 2013, a petition was launched by a collective of politicians, academics, faith groups and artists, requesting the official and formal recognition of the hardships faced by the Windrush generation and of their transformative contributions to British society. The petition’s aim was to make the 22 of June a public holiday, a celebration of modern day multicultural Britain. Were it to be accepted, it would be far more than just an official gesture; it would remind us and posterity that multiculturalism was not always tolerated. It has been a long, bumpy journey – and an ongoing one at that. It matters because the experience of the Windrush generation ties into what many other colonial migrants (from India or from Pakistan) have faced, while navigating their new lives in Britain.

The matter is urgent, all the more so as very few of the original ‘Windrushers’ are still alive to witness such a historic moment. The aim of the Windrush70 Project, staged by the Windrush Foundation to celebrate the anniversary, is to honour the legacy of 70 ‘Windrush Champions’, such as Lord Kitchener, a famous Trinidadian Calypsonian who conceived his famous tune ‘London is the Place for Me’ as he stepped off the Empire Windrush in 1948. Music like this shows how much hope and enthusiasm the United Kingdom inspired in some of the newcomers. Another memorable champion is Allan Charles Wilmot, a Jamaican World War II veteran, who fought for the British Royal Navy, and became a singer, conquering the London entertainment scene of the 1950s and 1960s with his male singing quartet The Southlanders. After returning to Jamaica in 1946, he decided not to settle there, and instead set sail for the UK.

In terms of foreign policy, The British Nationality Act of 1948 granted British citizenship to all subjects from British colonies, which also recognised their right to work and settle in the UK along with their families. Apart from attracting additional labour force to rebuild the country after World War II, it is said that this open-door immigration policy was a cohesive measure to prevent the already contested British Empire from crumbling. Approximately half a million Caribbean nationals migrated to the UK between 1948 and 1970, helping to pave the way towards a more inclusive British society. However, the new arrivals from the colonies faced hostility from the local population. They were often denied decent housing and pushed into low-skilled jobs, and 23 years later, the British Nationality Act gave way to the 1971 Immigration Act, which considerably restricted the ‘right of abode’ in the UK for Commonwealth Citizens. From then onwards, the right to settle in the UK was limited to those with a prior link, such as a proof of a parent or grandparent who was born in the UK. Although these restrictions considerably reduced primary immigration, many of the settled communities remained.

The current Immigration Act 2016 builds upon the 1971 ideology by seeking to enforce measures to ‘combat the threat of illegal immigration to the UK’. The ‘broader strategy’ includes a reduction for the demand of skilled migrant labour and a ‘crack down on the exploitation of low-skilled workers’. However, reading between these official lines, one is inclined to think that the main priority is to keep migrants out, even if their skills could benefit the British economy. It appears that the overall mentality toward migration has not greatly changed since 1971.

Creating a National Windrush Day is not about creating a ‘one-size-fits-all’ collective memory of what the ‘migrant to Britain’ must have experienced at the time, nor is it about undermining the cultural diversity of Britain. It is about honouring the nearly 2.5 million women and men from the colonies who volunteered to fight in the British ranks during World War II. It is about celebrating the diversity of the peoples from all over the former British Empire coming together in what many hailed to be their ‘Mother country’. For numerous third and fourth generation descendants of primary migrants, identifying as British is perfectly compatible with honouring their heritage. Creating a National Windrush Day would be a decisive step towards the acknowledgement of current realities, reflecting the plurality of British identity.

The recently uncovered Windrush scandal, referring to the hardship some have been facing, despite living and working in the UK for decades makes it all the more pressing to honour the facts: that these individuals have been denied health care or other benefits, lost their jobs or even been threatened by deportation because they were unable to produce ‘satisfactory documentation’ proving they have the right to be in the UK, were British citizens by law when they first arrived between 1948 and 1971. The careless disposal of landing cards by the Home Office back in 2010 may have placed thousands of ‘Windrush babies’ in citizenship limbo, but it cannot erase history.

Caroline Burleigh is Head of the Identities Programme at Agora.

The future of Britain’s financial primacy

by

Much ink has been spilt discussing the impact of Brexit on Britain’s financial institutions but despite its importance to the future of the UK it remains a little understood area.

In recent times some of the world’s premier financial institutions have chosen to make London their European home, with access to corresponding markets their primary motivation. In accordance with this growth, financial services have become a powerful sector in the UK. Making up 10.7% of the UK economy and delivering a £72 billion trade surplus (our most exported product).

Since the decline of its manufacturing base the UK economy has become dominated by its services sector. This has resulted in the accumulation of huge trade deficits, a trend which has only been exacerbated in the wake of the UK’s decision to leave the EU. December 2017 saw the total good and services deficit grow to £4.9 billion, as a weak pound didn’t see as a big a boost in cheaper exports as expected.

In the face of such an economic outlook, a buoyant services market has kept the UK’s head above the water. So whilst the UK may be heavily reliant on imported goods, it remains competitive on services – with trade surpluses regularly delivered. An integral part of this has been the financial industry and its reputation as being a world leader in its field.

It is perhaps unsurprising then that, according to a House of Commons briefing paper published late last year, the UK has trade deficit with the EU in goods (£96 billion) but a surplus in services (£14 billion). The UK’s exporting of financial services to the EU is facilitated by the ‘passport’ system, a current privilege that will come to an end if the UK leaves the Single Market. To put it simply it means the free exchange of services, meaning banks in the City of London can sell their services throughout Europe without the hindrance of trade barriers.

When it comes to negotiating a final Brexit agreement, there are a few ways that this could be looked at. One is that the UK, due to the EU’s reliance on our banking, accountancy and insurance firms, hold the upper hand. As a consequence, the EU will be pressurised by European business who use these services into maintaining the status quo. Another way of looking at it is that the UK relies so much on Europe as a trading partner and their imports that an ‘off the shelf’ trade deal like CETA (between Canada and the EU) will have to be prioritised. Although these agreements deal only with goods only, the motivation would be the mutual desire to keep tariffs low. The UK will need to fulfil its current reliance on European goods and EU business want to continue supplying a market where there is such a demand at competitive prices.

As Jonathan Ford explained in the Financial Times late last year, the City of London retains a global importance that EU banks simply cannot turn their backs on. A crucial aspect of this is the US dollar markets which are based in London through the CLS International Bank. Combine this with the subsidiaries (and the extra capital needed) that would have to be created by EU and UK banks in each other’s territory to keep current business intact. The loss of the passport rights would signal the end of the current system of bank ‘branches’ in different countries, this is highly efficient in the consumption of capital, so is very beneficial for the entirety of the finance industry.

Losing this system could cause substantial losses in revenue for all of the industry. However, as Ford points out, there would be a disparity in the revenue ‘at risk’ for each institution. For example, UK banks (Barclays, RBS etc.) might lose out but this pales into insignificance when compared to the amounts at stake for European banks such as Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas.

Therefore, the power the City of London can boast, and the integral position it holds for the operations of European banks, set the tone for this aspect of the Brexit talks. In fact, this much maligned industry could save us from the hardest of hard Brexits.

Ben Campbell works in the charity sector in Birmingham. He is interested in European politics and most recently the impact Brexit will have on British industry.

Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems: regulating war beyond the human

by

There is something unsettling about the idea of ‘lethal autonomous weapon system’ (LAWS), so it is hardly surprising that it has sparked hot debates. Much of this discussion has been speculative as today humans are still supervising weapon systems. Automatic weapon systems already exist. They are often rather simple mechanisms that respond in a predictable way to external inputs such as landmines. Autonomous weapons in contrast, demonstrate more complex behaviour, which cannot be fully deduced from their programming. They display a certain degree of self-determination and self-learning.

Last November, CEO of Tesla, Elon Musk and other industry leaders presented an open letter warning against LAWS. The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots launched in London in 2013 with the objective of banning LAWS; it argues that they significantly transform war and are unable to resolve ethical dilemmas on the battlefield. Human Rights Watch released a report in 2012 also calling for pre-emptive bans. The case against autonomous weapons has already become a point of discussion at the United Nations.

As the UK commands one of the most technologically advanced armed forces, it will inevitably be confronted with questions of the legal and moral consequences of autonomous military technology. After Musk and others published their letter, the British government declared that future unmanned systems will always be under human supervision except in cyber warfare. However, there has not been further specification what such control constitute. Robotics expert Professor Noel Sharkey applauded this statement but pointed out that ‘control’ could simply mean that humans confirm a lethal strike on a target selected by AI. In 2015, the British government refused to support an international ban on LAWS, arguing that current international humanitarian law already provides enough regulation.

Major concerns from activist groups about the impact of LAWS include a disruption of strategic stability through an arms race in autonomous systems as well faster, more intense escalation of violence. There have already been signs of this, for example Chinese and Russian leaders have stated their desire to acquire LAWS. Others fear that replacing human soldiers with robots will make the decision to go war easier by seemingly reducing the domestic political consequences – given that the loss of a machine is more acceptable to society than human lives. These are valid concerns that require evaluation and appropriate measures in order to prevent the risks of mistakes.

Machines may also lack the larger context of a particular course of action. The example of Stanislav Petkov, a Soviet Lieutenant Colonel who disobeyed direct orders to launch nuclear missiles after recognising a false alarm, illustrates this conundrum. Had a few lines of code been responsible for of launching the missiles on input from the alert system, a nuclear war would have erupted. To make a decision like Petkov’s requires knowledge of military and political context, accurate judgement of human behaviour and intuition. It is questionable whether machines can ever be programmed to a near-human degree of situational and emotional perception.

On the other side of the debate, many have been critical of the term “killer robots” which seems to render the debate overly emotional. Similarly, they note that, it is important to note that humans make mistakes as well; problems such as stress or a demonisation of the enemy can increase the chance of miscalculation or excessive violence. In fact, they argue, that machines have the potential to significantly reduce these risks and act more rationally than a human would in the same situation.

At the moment, it seems unlikely that further research on LAWS will be prevented. While the UK announced that it will maintain ‘human-in-the-loop’ systems, there are projects in the US, Russia, Israel and other countries to develop autonomous military robots. A future with autonomous weapons is plausible. As soon as one state develops functional LAWS, others will see the need to follow suit. A ban might therefore be impossible to realise.

Nevertheless, it is imperative to have a public debate about the potential implications of LAWS on the battlefield, particularly with regards to how machines will select targets and decide when to engage. The international community can however pre-emptively organise frameworks to regulate the use of LAWS. A UN body on autonomous weapons already exists, based on which future measures can be built.A priority should be given to determine the precise nature of ‘human control’ is. Multilateral deliberation between experts in robotics, delegates of humanitarian organisations and government representatives is essential to identify the shortcomings of LAWS and evaluate which measures are effective, sufficient and feasible to ensure that the use of autonomous weapons will be compatible with international law.

A war where humans are no longer the prime actor may one day exist and the UK, as well as the rest of the world, must make sure it’s ready.