Lord Cameron has not ruled out the possibility of further strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen, arguing the UK must do “what is necessary” to protect its ships.
Speaking to NBC, Sky News’s sister outlet in the United States, the foreign secretary said “warnings” issued to the rebels – who had been attacking UK and US ships in the Red Sea – had not been “working”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:46
Houthi target hit by RAF in Yemen
But asked whether there was a risk that the UK could get pulled into launching repeated further strikes, the foreign secretary said: “We will do what is necessary to protect our ships to protect maritime freedom of navigation on important maritime pathways.”
He added: “But be clear what we were doing – warning – was not working.
“The number of attacks was increasing the severity of those attacks was increasing. This escalation has been caused by the Houthis. And this action is in response to that to send a very clear message that if you act in this way, there aren’t just warnings there are consequences.”
On Friday the prime minister’s official spokesperson said there were currently “no further plans” to launch strikes to restore the shipping lanes, but that the UK keeps its security “under review”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:02
What happened in Yemen airstrikes?
The UK and US launched the action – which killed five people – after Houthi rebels attacked a series of commercial ships, beginning in November.
The Iranian-backed group of Shia Islamists, who are based in western Yemen, ignored repeated warnings to stop targeting ships in the Red Sea.
Tensions were inflamed further this week after after a British warship, in an operation with US forces, shot down seven drones launched by Houthis to repel the largest drone and missile attack to date.
The Houthis have claimed the attacks are aimed at ending the air and ground offensive in Gaza following the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:43
Minister: Houthi strikes ‘self-defence’
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) said four Royal Air Force jets struck two Houthi facilities that had been involved in the targeting of HMS Diamond and US Navy vessels on Tuesday.
One facility was a site at Bani and the other was the Abbs airfield, which is used to launch drones and cruise missiles.
The US Air Force said it struck more than 60 targets at 16 sites in Yemen.
While France and Germany have offered their backing to the move, Turkey has argued that the action against the Houthi rebels was not “proportional”.
Its president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, accused the US and UK of trying to turn the Red Sea into a “sea of blood”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:54
Houthis vow ‘punishment’ for attacks
Lord Cameron dismissed those criticisms, saying he believed the joint action with the US was “proportionate” and “legal”.
“It was absolutely right to do,” he added. “And I think it sends a very clear message to the Houthis – but also to Iran as well.”
Rishi Sunak is expected to make a statement to MPs on Monday about the military strikes against the Houthis following criticism that MPs were not consulted on the plans.
The Liberal Democrats have called for a retrospective vote on the military action in the Red Sea and called for MPs to be recalled to parliament before Monday, with foreign affairs spokesperson Layla Moran saying: “Parliament should not be bypassed.
“We remain very concerned about the Houthis’ attacks. But that makes it all the more important to ensure that MPs are not silenced on the important issue of military action.”
And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.
You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.
For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.
And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.
But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.
And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.
There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.
And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.
This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.
In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.
Image: A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA
Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.
But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.
This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.
But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?
The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.
But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?
Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?
I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.
And this morning, they issued one.
A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”
So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?
The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.
But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?
The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.