Britain’s annual Remembrance Day has a special dimension this year because it is the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings.
The speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, and the Imperial War Museum are arranging for images of the men and women who took part in the Normandy campaign to be projected on the Elizabeth Tower below Big Ben.
Political leaders past and present will be on parade to lay wreaths at the Cenotaph, which commemorates “Our Glorious Dead” from two world wars and other military conflicts. Those assembled see no contradiction in the fact they are all bound to have been involved in cuts to the UK’s defence capabilities.
D-Day, when British and American troops fought on to the beaches to liberate Europe, is the defining moment of the UK’s patriotic pride to this day – which is why it was a big mistake by Rishi Sunak in the summer to duck out early from France and the international commemorations of 6 June 1944.
Ever since then Britain and Europe have nestled in the security umbrella extended by the United States.
The Americans came, belatedly, to the rescue in both world wars and we assume that it would do so again. The North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) is explicit that an attack on one member is an attack on all, and the US is the dominant contributor to NATO in both cash and military might.
There was already fresh uneasiness among British politicians about how safe we really are as tensions grow around the world from Ukraine to the Middle East to China. A recent House of Commons report was entitled “Ready For War?”.
Image: The King attends the Remembrance Sunday ceremony at the Cenotaph in 2023. Pic: AP
Russia’s territorial aggression against Ukraine has brought bloody confrontation between nation states back on to our continent.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, Mr Trump, the US president-elect, has said he feels no obligation to defend European countries who do not spend as much as he thinks they should.
Given the enthusiasm of successive governments to cash a peace dividend by cutting back defence spending, there are real doubts as to whether the UK would be able to defend itself if it came to another war, according to General Sir Roly Walker, who has taken over as the head of UK armed forces.
This summer he set himself the task of readying “to deter or fight a war in three years”.
He is aiming to double the “lethality” of the army in the face of threats from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea which may be separate or co-ordinated.
Image: Donald Trump after taking the stage to declare victory. Pic: Reuters
The recent BRICS summit in Russia and the deployment of North Korean troops to fight with Vladimir Putin’s forces in Ukraine both show their willingness to internationalise local conflicts. George Robertson, the former defence secretary and NATO general secretary heading a defence review for the government, has also identified the threat from this “deadly quartet”.
General Walker says he can increase lethality within existing spending by smarter use of technology such as drones and AI.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The problem is that this will still require diverting resources from existing capabilities, when deployable fighting manpower is already at its lowest for 200 years.
British politicians are increasingly aware of the need to strengthen capability and a number of overlapping inquiries are under way.
But given the overall pressures on the national budget, they have been reluctant to focus on the full financial implications.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
10:09
Badenoch calls out Lammy at PMQs
At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, the new leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch challenged Sir Kier Starmer to say when the UK will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence; he retorted that it remains an unspecified commitment but that the last Labour government was the last to spend as much. From Mr Cameron to Mr Sunak, the Conservatives never did.
This sparring ignores the reality that for effective security, spending will need to rocket to 3% and beyond, and that Mr Trump may well be the one making that demand.
The US spends 3.5% of its national wealth – matching 68% of the defence spending of all the other members on its own.
Image: Vladimir Putin meets Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Kazan. Pic Reuters
They have not all yet hit the official NATO target of 2%, designed in part to “Trump proof” the alliance against the possibility of an American pullout.
The US currently has 100,000 troops based in Europe, increased by 20,000 since Mr Putin’s attack in 2022.
The next Trump administration will certainly want to reduce that number. But a slow reduction of the US commitment is happening in any case.
This week, Professor Malcom Chalmers told MPs on the Defence Select Committee: “The most plausible planning assumption for the UK right now is that America will provide a progressively smaller proportion of NATO’s overall capability and we are going to have to fill those gaps.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:10
Can Trump’s tariffs impact the UK?
Given the likelihood that Mr Trump’s proposed new tariffs will slow the global economy, Sir Keir and the Labour government will have even less to spend on public services than it is proposing. It seems inconceivable that the UK would willingly go beyond 2.5%, whatever the current defence review says is necessary for the defence of the realm.
Just in current defence spending, John Healey, the new defence secretary, claimed he had inherited a £17bn “black hole” of unfunded planned spending from the Conservatives.
Ukraine is likely to be the first flashpoint.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s supporters want the US to increase its military aid when the US wants Europe to take more of the burden of defending itself as the US “pivots” to the greater threat it sees to itself from China.
Mr Trump has said he plans to end the Ukraine conflict in 24 hours.
Image: Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy with Donald Trump in New York. Pic: Reuters
In essence, Mr Putin would keep some of his territorial claims in Donbas and NATO would not extend its security guarantee to what remains of an independent Ukraine.
Mr Trump has already said that NATO’s longstanding and vague offer of eventual membership was “a mistake”.
Anxious not to alienate the US further and hard-pressed financially, some leading European nations including Germany appear ready to go along with such a sell-out.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
A number of security experts, including former acting deputy prime minister Sir David Lidington, say this deal would be “Donald Trump’s Munich”.
This is a reference to the “peace in our time” deal agreed by prime minister Neville Chamberlain with Adolf Hitler, which failed to halt further aggression by Nazi Germany before the Second World War.
Then, as previously with the First World War, “America First” instincts were to leave the Europeans to sort out their own mess. But American forces ended up shedding their blood decisively in both conflicts.
Once again, the UK and Europe are not ready for war, and relying on an increasingly unreliable US. The politicians, prime ministers and generals gathering at the Cenotaph to honour the war dead should have much on their minds.
Bitcoin’s latest pullback may already be bottoming out, with asset manager Grayscale arguing that the market is on track to break the traditional four-year halving cycle and potentially set new all-time highs in 2026.
Some indicators are already pointing to a local bottom, not a prolonged drawdown, including Bitcoin’s (BTC) elevated option skew rising above 4, which signals that investors have already hedged “extensively” for downside exposure.
Despite a 32% decline, Bitcoin is on track to disrupt the traditional four-year halving cycle, wrote Grayscale in a Monday research report. “Although the outlook is uncertain, we believe the four-year cycle thesis will prove to be incorrect, and that Bitcoin’s price will potentially make new highs next year,” the report said.
Bitcoin pullback, compared to previous drawdowns. Source: research.grayscale.com
Still, Bitcoin’s short-term recovery remains limited until some of the main flow indicators stage a reversal, including futures open interest, exchange-traded fund (ETF) inflows and selling from long-term Bitcoin holders.
US spot Bitcoin ETFs, one of the main drivers of Bitcoin’s momentum in 2025, added significant downside pressure in November, racking up $3.48 billion in net negative outflows in their second-worst month on record, according to Farside Investors.
Bitcoin ETF Flow, in USD, million. Source: Farside Investors
More recently, though, the tide has started to turn. The funds have now logged four consecutive days of inflows, including a modest $8.5 million on Monday, suggesting ETF buyer appetite is slowly returning after the sell-off.
While market positioning suggests a “leverage reset rather than a sentiment break,” the key question is whether Bitcoin can “reclaim the low-$90,000s to avoid sliding toward mid-to-low-$80,000 support,” Iliya Kalchev, dispatch analyst at digital asset platform Nexo, told Cointelegraph.
Fed policy and US crypto bill loom as 2026 catalysts
Crypto market watchers now await the largest “swing factor,” the US Federal Reserve’s interest rate decision on Dec. 10. The Fed’s decision and monetary policy guidance will serve as a significant catalyst for 2026, according to Grayscale.
Markets are pricing in an 87% chance of a 25 basis point interest rate cut, up from 63% a month ago, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch tool.
Later in 2026, Grayscale said continued progress toward the Digital Asset Market Structure bill may act as another catalyst for driving “institutional investment in the industry.” However, for more progress to be made, crypto needs to remain a “bipartisan issue,” and not turn into a partisan topic for the midterm US elections.
That effort effectively began with the passage of the CLARITY Act in the House of Representatives, which moved forward in July as part of the Republicans’ “crypto week” agenda. Senate leaders have said they plan to “build on” the House bill under the banner of the Responsible Financial Innovation Act, aiming to set a broader framework for digital asset markets.
The bill is currently under consideration in the Republican-led Senate Agriculture Committee and the Senate Banking Committee. Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott said in November that the committee planned to have the bill ready for signing into law by early 2026.
Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki declined to sign a bill imposing strict regulations on the crypto asset market, drawing praise from the crypto community and sharp criticism from others in the government.
Nawrocki vetoed Poland’s Crypto-Asset Market Act, saying its provisions “genuinely threaten the freedoms of Poles, their property, and the stability of the state,” according to a statement by the president’s press office on Monday.
Introduced in June, the bill has drawn criticism from industry advocates such as Polish politician Tomasz Mentzen, who had anticipated the president’s refusal to sign it as it cleared parliamentary approval.
Although crypto advocates welcomed the veto as a win for the market, several government officials condemned the move, claiming the president had “chosen chaos” and must bear full responsibility for the outcome.
Why the president vetoed the bill
One of the main reasons cited for the veto was a provision allowing authorities to easily block websites operating in the crypto market.
“Domain blocking laws are opaque and can lead to abuse,” the president’s office said in an official news release.
The president’s office also cited the bill’s widely criticized length, saying its complexity reduces transparency and would lead to “overregulation,” especially when compared with simpler frameworks in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary.
Source: Press office of Polish President Karol Nawrocki (post translated by X)
“Overregulation is an easy way to drive companies to the Czech Republic, Lithuania or Malta, rather than create conditions for them to operate and pay taxes in Poland,” the president said.
Nawrocki also highlighted the excessive amount of supervisory fees, which may prevent startup activity and favor foreign corporations and banks.
“This is a reversal of logic, killing off a competitive market and a serious threat to innovation,” he said.
Critics jump in: “The president chose chaos”
Nawrocki’s veto has triggered a strong backlash from top Polish officials, including Finance Minister Andrzej Domański and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Radosław Sikorski.
Domański warned on X that “already now 20% of clients are losing their money as a result of abuses in this market,” accusing the president of having “chosen chaos” and saying he bears full responsibility for the fallout.
Sikorski echoed the concern, saying that the bill was supposed to regulate the crypto market. “When the bubble bursts and thousands of Poles lose their savings, at least they will know who to thank,” Sikorski argued on X.
Source: Finance Minister Andrzej Domański (posts translated by X)
Crypto advocates, including Polish economist Krzysztof Piech, quickly pushed back, arguing that the president cannot be held responsible for authorities failing to pursue scammers.
He also noted that the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) is set to provide investor protections across all EU member states starting July 1, 2026.
The US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will propose a framework for implementing US stablecoin laws later this month, according to its acting chair, Travis Hill.
“The FDIC has begun work to promulgate rules to implement the GENIUS Act; we expect to issue a proposed rule to establish our application framework later this month,” Hill said in prepared testimony to be delivered on Tuesday to the House Financial Services Committee.
He added the agency will also have a “proposed rule to implement the GENIUS Act’s prudential requirements for FDIC-supervised payment stablecoin issuers early next year.”
President Donald Trump signed the GENIUS Act in July, which created oversight and licensing regimes for multiple regulators, with the FDIC to police the stablecoin-issuing subsidiaries of the institutions it oversees.
The FDIC insures deposits in thousands of banks in the event that they fail, and under the GENIUS Act, it will also be tasked with making “capital requirements, liquidity standards, and reserve asset diversification standards” for stablecoin issuers, said Hill.
Travis Hill appearing before the Senate Banking Committee for his nomination hearing to be FDIC chair. Source: Senate Banking Committee
Federal agencies, such as the FDIC, publish their proposed rules for public feedback, and they then review and respond to the input, if necessary, before publishing a final version of the rules, a process that can take several months.
The Treasury, which will also regulate some stablecoin issuers, including non-banks, began its implementation of the GENIUS Act in August and finished a second period of public comment on its implementation proposal last month.
FDIC is working on tokenized deposit guidelines
Hill said in his remarks that the FDIC has also considered recommendations published in July by the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets.
“The report recommends clarifying or expanding permissible activities in which banks may engage, including the tokenization of assets and liabilities,” Hill said.
“We are also currently developing guidance to provide additional clarity with respect to the regulatory status of tokenized deposits,” he added.
Fed helping regulators with stablecoin rules
The Federal Reserve’s vice supervision chair, Michelle Bowman, will also testify on Tuesday that the central bank is “currently working with the other banking regulators to develop capital, liquidity, and diversification regulations for stablecoin issuers as required by the GENIUS Act.”
Bowman added, according to her prepared remarks, that “we also need to provide clarity in treatment on digital assets to ensure that the banking system is well placed to support digital asset activities.”
“This includes clarity on the permissibility of activities, but also a willingness to provide regulatory feedback on proposed new use cases,” she said.
The House Finance Committee’s hearing on Tuesday will also see remarks from the heads of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the National Credit Union Administration, which will both have a role in implementing stablecoin rules.