Remembrance Day comes at a time when the UK is not ready for war – and the US is not as reliable as it once was

Published

1 year ago

November 10, 2024

admin

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?”.

The re-election of Donald Trump and his “America First” priorities have increased those pressures.

Russia’s territorial aggression against Ukraine has brought bloody confrontation between nation states back on to our continent.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

👉 Tap here to follow the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts 👈

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.

Politics

Ex-Labour MP Zarah Sultana at centre of new party row over £800k in donations

Published

2 hours ago

November 10, 2025

admin

Ex-Labour MP Zarah Sultana at centre of new party row over £800k in donations

Donations being held by Zarah Sultana will be transferred over to Your Party in tranches from this week, Sky News has been told, but the party stand-off remains.

Ms Sultana has sole control of over £800,000 of Your Party donations following an internal fallout.

Her spokesperson told Sky News £600k would be transferred over in three tranches starting with £200k from Wednesday, and the rest “once the company’s costs, expenses and liabilities are settled in full”.

But a Your Party source told Sky News she should transfer the full £800k worth of donations now.

Politics Live: Another migrant deported to France returns to UK on small boat

It follows a major row over finances behind the scenes of the new left-wing party, which Ms Sultana co-launched with Jeremy Corbyn in July.

At the time, a company called MOU Operations was used to collect donations, with the idea this would be transferred over to Your Party once it was formally registered with the Electoral Commission.

The registration happened on 30 September, but no transfer of funds has been made – despite Ms Sultana stepping in to take ownership of MOU last month after its previous three directors quit.

MOU is holding around £800k of donations in total, as well as around £500k in fees collected as part of Ms Sultana’s unauthorised membership launch, Sky News understands.

Ms Sultana’s spokesperson said £600k would be transferred over in three tranches, and the rest “once the company’s costs, expenses and liabilities are settled in full”.

The Your Party source told Sky News that Ms Sultana has been told Your Party can’t accept the money related to her membership launch due to legal risks and accused her of trying to “offload” it.

Ms Sultana agreed to take over MOU to break a standoff between Your Party and the company’s previous three directors – former Labour MP Beth Winter, former Labour mayor Jamie Driscoll and former South African politician Andrew Feinstein.

The trio set up MOU in April to assist with a new left-wing party centred around Mr Corbyn but resigned on 29 October, claiming the role of holding donations had been “thrust upon” them and raising concerns about a “lack of appropriate governance” within Your Party.

The statement said they hadn’t transferred over the funds because they were worried about legal liabilities and wanted Your Party to take over the company instead – but five of the six founding MPs refused.

Ms Sultana said her stepping in would “bring the chapter to a close” and “these resources will now be used for Your Party, as was always intended”.

However that angered some within Your Party who say this is a mess of her own making because of the membership fiasco, which is still being investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

‘Low trust environment’

While Mr Corbyn and Ms Sultana have since patched things up, one Your Party source described operating in a “low trust environment”.

Senior Your Party figures have accused Ms Sultana of deliberately withholding MOU’s funds for political leverage despite privately and publicly committing to the transfer. Organisers expressed frustration at operating on a “shoestring” ahead of the founding conference at the end of this month.

However, allies close to the Coventry South MP have dismissed the “hostile briefings” and insist she has been conducting “due diligence” before sending the money over.

Sky News understands Ms Sultana has been seeking Your Party’s constitution and financial scheme as registered with the Electoral Commission, to help her understand the party’s governing structures.

A source close to her claims there has been an unwillingness to share the documents from within Your Party, so she has requested them from the elections watchdog directly.

It is not clear who wrote the documents and who is controlling access to them – or why one of the party’s founders should not be able to see them.

A spokesperson for Ms Sultana said: “Zarah did not choose to become the sole director of MOU Operations Limited, but was prepared to take on this responsibility to ensure funds are transferred as quickly as possible and preparations for the founding conference can progress.

“As sole director, she is legally responsible for ensuring the company’s costs, liabilities and expenses are settled, and this process may take some time. To ensure funds are available for the founding conference, she will transfer £600k in tranches over the next couple of weeks. The first £200k is scheduled to be sent 12 November.

“All remaining funds will be transferred once the company’s costs, expenses and liabilities are settled in full.”

A Your Party spokesperson said: “We are completely focused on putting together a successful founding conference for our members, so they can democratically decide Your Party’s structures and programme, and Britain can get the socialist alternative it so badly needs. Hundreds of volunteers are working tirelessly on a shoestring budget to make this a reality, a testament to the grassroots power of our mass movement.”

Politics

XRP rallies on US shutdown nearing end, ETF tickers landing on DTCC

Published

6 hours ago

November 10, 2025

admin

XRP rallies on US shutdown nearing end, ETF tickers landing on DTCC

Excitement in the crypto community is growing over the potential launch of XRP funds, as the US Senate advances a deal aimed at ending the longest-ever government shutdown.

The Senate reportedly reached a deal on a budget bill to end the government shutdown on Sunday, sending a bullish signal to numerous markets, including crypto.

The XRP (XRP) community is anticipating multiple XRP exchange-traded funds (ETFs) to launch shortly, with several already appearing on the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC) website ahead of a possible launch this month.

The price of XRP has rallied more than 12% on the bullish news over the past 24 hours, with the token trading at $2.56 at the time of publication, according to CoinGecko.

11 XRP products listed on DTCC

As of Monday, the DTCC website featured 11 XRP ETF products on its “active and pre-launch” listing, including those by 21Shares, ProShares, Bitwise, Canary Capital, Volatility Shares, REX-Osprey, CoinShares, Amplify and Franklin Templeton.

Although a DTCC listing does not equal actual launch and does not guarantee regulatory approval, it signals that the ETF infrastructure is ready to be traded on US markets.

*The list of XRP products listed on the DTCC as of Monday. Source: DTCC*

It’s worth noting that Grayscale’s XRP Trust (GXRP) has not yet appeared on the DTCC website, and the list also does not currently include an XRP fund from WisdomTree.

“Government shutdown ending = spot crypto ETF floodgates opening,” ETF expert Nate Geraci wrote in an X post on Sunday, adding: “In the meantime, could see first ‘33 Act spot xrp ETF launch this week.”

Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas also posted on X on Sunday, noting that the “shutdown is over” and highlighting a subsequent uptick in US equity futures.

“The SEC had open litigation against Ripple for the past five years, up until three months ago. IMO, the launch of spot XRP ETFs represents the final nail in the coffin for the previous wave of anti-crypto regulators,” he wrote in an X post on Nov. 2.

Ripple, SEC, XRP, ETF, Policy — *Source:* *Nate Geraci*

He also highlighted a post from Canary Capital, which claimed last Friday that its XRP ETF is “coming soon,” speculating that the product could go live by the end of this week.