Connect with us

Published

on

Sir Keir Starmer said the UK is set to increase spending on defence, security and resilience to 5% of GDP by 2035 to meet an “era of radical uncertainty” – but without promising any additional cash.

The move – part of a new spending pledge by the NATO alliance – was panned as deceptive “smoke and mirrors” by critics, who pointed to the very real risk of escalating conflict between Iran, the US and Israel, as well as Russia’s full-scale war in Ukraine.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Sky News the timeline for the increase was “very slow” and warned Russia could attack a NATO country within five years.

“In my view, this is slow because we believe that starting from 2030, Putin can have significantly greater capabilities,” he told chief presenter Mark Austin.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Russia could attack a NATO country’

The prime minister, Donald Trump and the other leaders of NATO’s 32 member states are expected to approve the investment goal when they meet at a summit in The Hague, which opens later today.

It replaces a previous target to spend 2% of GDP purely on defence.

The announcement will be celebrated as a win for the US president, who has been demanding his allies spend more on their own defences instead of relying on American firepower.

More on Nato

Overnight, he claimed to have secured another success, declaring that Iran and Israel have agreed to a ceasefire – just hours after Iran launched missiles against two American military bases in retaliation to a US decision to attack three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend.

Perhaps it will mean he will switch attention back to achieving a goal to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, which will be another key focus of the gathering in the Dutch capital.

NATO planners have crunched the summit down to a short main session tomorrow, with a final communique much briefer than usual – all steps designed to reduce the chance of the US president leaving early.

He is already scheduled to arrive late and last this evening, provided he turns up.

There is huge nervousness about Mr Trump’s commitment to an alliance that has been the bedrock of European security since it was founded more than 75 years ago.

He is not a fan though, and has previously accused Europe and Canada of an overreliance on American firepower for their own security, calling for them to do more to defend themselves.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and U.S. President Donald Trump shake hands during a joint press conference in the East Room at the White House, February 27, 2025 in Washington, D.C., U.S. Carl Court/Pool via REUTERS
Image:
Trump is expected to join Starmer and fellow leader NATO leaders at The Hague. Pic: Reuters

This pressure has arguably been a bigger motivator in prompting certain allies to agree to spend more on their militaries than the threat they say is posed by Russia, Iran, China and North Korea.

Spain’s position could create friction this week. The Spanish prime minister, while agreeing to the new investment goal, has said his country is not obliged to meet it.

The UK was also slow to say yes – a stance that was at odds with a defence review endorsed by Sir Keir that was centred around a “NATO-first” policy.

As well as agreeing to the defence and security investment goal, the British government is also publishing a new national security strategy on Tuesday that will highlight the importance of a wider definition of what constitutes security, including energy, food and borders.

There will also be a focus on a whole-of-society approach to resilience in an echo of the UK’s Cold War past.

A view shows the venue of the upcoming NATO summit, in The Hague, Netherlands June 23, 2025. REUTERS/Christian Hartmann
Image:
Preparations for the NATO summit at The Hague. Pic: Reuters

It described the commitment to invest in defence, security and national resilience as an aligning of “national security objectives and plans for economic growth in a way not seen since 1945”.

Sir Keir said: “We must navigate this era of radical uncertainty with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest to deliver security for working people and keep them safe.

“That’s why I have made the commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This is an opportunity to deepen our commitment to NATO and drive greater investment in the nation’s wider security and resilience.”

The funding will be split, with 3.5% of GDP going on core defence and 1.5% on homeland security and national resilience – a new and so far less clearly defined criteria.

Progress on investment will be reviewed in 2029.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy shakes hands with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at 10 Downing Street, in London, Britain June
Image:
Starmer today met with Zelenskyy at Downing Street. Pic: Reuters

The defence goal is higher than the government’s current ambition to lift defence expenditure to 3% of GDP by 2034, from 2.3% currently.

The only solid commitment is to spend 2.6% on defence by 2027 – a figure that has been boosted by the addition of the whole of the budget for the intelligence agencies.

This level of intelligence spending had not previously been included and has drawn criticism from defence experts because it is not the same as tanks, artillery and troops.

Read more:
How much damage did US inflict on Iran?
UK could send further capabilities to Middle East, minister says

The government, in its statement, is now focusing on an even higher-sounding number, claiming that it will hit 4.1% of the new NATO target by 2027.

However, this is merely based on adding the new 1.5% spending goal for “resilience and security” to the already stated 2.6% defence spending pledge.

A Downing Street spokesperson was unable immediately to say how much of GDP is currently spent on whatever is included in the new resilience category.

It could include pre-announced investment in civil nuclear energy as well as infrastructure projects such as roads and railways.

For the UK, 1.5% of GDP is about £40bn – a significant chunk of national income.

Sir Ben Wallace, a former Conservative defence secretary, accused the government of “spin” over its spending pledge because it does not include any new money anytime soon.

“The threat to our country is real not spin,” he told Sky News.

“This government thinks it can use smoke and mirrors to deceive the public and Donald Trump. This is an insult to our troops who will see no significant new money. It fools no one.”

Continue Reading

Politics

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

Published

on

By

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

After nearly a year of legal proceedings, a South Korean court acquitted former Wemade CEO Jang Hyun-guk of market manipulation charges.

Continue Reading

Politics

Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules?

Published

on

By

Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules?

Are Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules quite as iron clad as she insists?

How tough is her armour really? And is there actually scope for some change, some loosening to avoid big tax hikes in the autumn?

We’ve had a bit of clarity early this morning – and that’s a question we discuss on the Politics at Sam and Anne’s podcast today.

Politics Live: Reeves to reform financial regulations

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.

It’s outlined in paragraph 3.6 on page four of the Charter for Budget Responsibility.

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.

Rachel Reeves during a visit to Cosy Ltd.
Pic: PA
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

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?

Read more:
Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn
Tough decisions ahead for chancellor

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?

I’m still unsure that change has been ruled out.

Continue Reading

Politics

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

Published

on

By

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

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.

Continue Reading

Trending