Britain moving jets to Middle East to support regional security, PM Starmer says
LONDON (Reuters) -Britain is moving additional military assets, including fighter jets, to the Middle East to provide support across the region, Prime Minister Keir Starmer told reporters on Saturday as he was en route to a Group of Seven meeting in Canada.
Iran and Israel traded missiles and airstrikes on Saturday, the day after Israel launched an air offensive against its old enemy, killing commanders and scientists and bombing nuclear sites in a stated bid to stop it building an atomic weapon.
"We are moving assets to the region, including jets, and that is for contingency support in the region," Starmer said.
Britain already has fighter jets in the Middle East as part of an operation to counter threats in Iraq and Syria.
Crews began deployment preparations on Friday morning, when it was clear the situation in the region was deteriorating, a spokesperson for the prime minister said.
Further refuelling aircraft from British bases have been deployed, and additional fighter jets will be sent, the spokesperson added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Starmer resists recognising Palestinian state as unions' demand deepens Labour split
Sir Keir Starmer has indicated he will not agree to recognise a unilateral Palestine as a state, as a civil war over the issue threatens to erupt in his party. With tensions mounting in the Middle East, given the ongoing blockade of Gaza by Israel and the region on the brink of all-out war between Israel and Iran, Sir Keir made it clear that the UK government will not budge. The prime minister said: 'Our position on recognition of Palestine as part of the process hasn't changed for us. I hold very strongly to the belief that the only long-term solution to the conflict in the Middle East is a two-state solution. However hard that may seem at the moment in the current circumstances, that is the only way to peace. So that continues to be our position.' His comments came as the Trades Union Congress (TUC), Labour's biggest financial backer, issued a joint statement with its Canadian and French counterparts calling on the UK government to change its position. It makes three demands, including recognising Palestine's statehood. They are calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, and for the government to ensure the Israeli government meets its obligations under international humanitarian law. The statement said: 'We urge our governments to formally recognise the State of Palestine now and to stand firm in their opposition to the atrocities committed in Gaza and in the West Bank. 'We welcome the recent joint statement by our heads of state calling for an immediate halt to Israel's assault in Gaza and for unimpeded access to humanitarian aid. 'These are critical first steps toward alleviating the suffering of civilians caught in the conflict. 'Our governments rightly acknowledged that permanent forced displacement is a breach of international humanitarian law, and we welcome their opposition to settlement expansion and the recognition that it is illegal and undermines the viability of a Palestinian state. However, words must be matched by action. 'As members of the G7, doing so would send a powerful signal – particularly in the lead-up to the UN conference co-chaired by France in mid-June. 'The time for decisive action is now. The need for justice, peace, and recognition has never been more urgent.' The text, seen by The Independent, comes as Sir Keir is in Canada meeting new PM Mark Carney for trade talks before attending the G7 summit where the Middle East crisis will be top of the agenda. It follows pressure from a number of senior Labour figures – including Commons foreign affairs chair Dame Emily Thornbury – for the UK to follow the example of Ireland, Spain and Norway last year to officially recognise Palestine as a state. Added pressure on the issue has even come from the Tories, with a group of Conservative MPs signing a letter from former minister Kit Malthouse demanding Palestine be recognised as a state. The Green Party and SNP have also long supported the policy. However, Jon Pearce, chair of the Labour Friends of Israel, which has a number of powerful cabinet allies, including the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Pat McFadden, has pushed back against the growing demands in Labour for Palestinian recognition. He claims it would undermine Britain's position as an honest broker in the conflict. He told The Independent: 'Given the all-too-evident threat posed by Iran's nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes, and its support for terrorism and proxy armies, not just to Israel and the region but to our own national security, it is vital that the UK maintains its diplomatic influence and credibility with our allies. 'Last year, Ireland, Spain and Norway unilaterally recognised a Palestinian state, but it changed nothing on the ground. If Britain were to follow this course, we would inevitably damage our reputation as an impartial broker and reduce our ability to have an impact.' He added: 'The Oslo accords state that any dispute must be resolved through direct negotiations. If Britain and our allies abandon our commitment to this core principle underpinning the accords, this will be a gift to those in Israel and the Palestinian Territories who have always opposed them and risk unleashing unbearable consequences for both Israelis and Palestinians. 'Recognition is a card that can only be played once. It must be done when it will have maximum impact.'
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
World leaders will still talk trade at the G7. They ‘can't afford not to'
President Donald Trump and other heads of state are set to gather in Canada for the annual G7 summit just days after Israel's unprecedented strike on Iran. Ordinarily, such a development would dominate the high-level discussions, but this time around, world leaders will likely need to also focus on another pressing issue: trade. 'You can't afford not to talk about it, from any country's perspective,' said Josh Lipsky, chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council. It's less than a month until July 9, President Donald Trump's self-imposed deadline for when dozens of countries, including several present at the meeting, could face higher tariffs unless they ink trade deals that avert further escalation. If no trade deal has been negotiated before that deadline, it's unclear whether Trump would revert to imposing his so-called 'reciprocal' rates — some of which were as high as 50% — or whether countries could face even higher rates. Trump also raised the possibility of extending the pause even further, though Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent testified last week that may only be offered for countries 'who are negotiating in good faith.' 'They are not going to throw out the [G7] agenda unless the security situation becomes world-threateningly grave,' Maurice Obstfeld, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said, referring to conversations world leaders are likely to have at the summit revolving around trade. Already, the 10% tariff Trump levied on practically every country's exports to the US, and the extra 50% tariff on steel and aluminum and 25% on cars, is starting to take a toll on some foreign countries' economies. For instance, United Kingdom data published last week indicated its economy in April shrank at rates not seen in nearly two years as exports to the US fell by a record amount. And it may only be a matter of time before other economies take a hit, with the World Bank projecting the weakest decade of global economic growth since the 1960s, according to a report the group released last week citing Trump's trade policies as a major catalyst. In particular, the World Bank predicts the US and Europe will suffer some of the sharpest growth declines compared to what it forecast earlier this year as a result of reduced trade and uncertainty regarding tariffs, which are expected to stymie economic activity. There's little doubt every world leader traveling to the summit in the Canadian Rockies would like to depart with a plan to avoid facing higher tariffs. But it's less certain whether that will happen. On a Friday call with reporters previewing Trump's agenda for the summit, a senior US official said trade, among other topics, including international security, will be discussed. 'The president is eager to pursue his goals in all of these areas, including making America's trade relationships fair and reciprocal,' the official said. Already, Japan's Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told reporters on Friday his one-on-one meeting with Trump at the summit will center around ongoing trade negotiations. But Lipsky isn't holding his breath for a trade deal announcement with Japan, or any other country present at the meeting. (In addition to leaders from G7 countries — Japan, the US, the UK, France, Germany, Canada and Italy — leaders of the European Union, Australia, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, South Africa and Ukraine will also be attending. 'Even if they're close to one, I don't think it makes sense in front of your colleagues to say, 'Here's the baseline I created with the Trump administration,' and give him that leverage point toward them.' That said, he's anticipating Trump and Ishiba could convey that they're close to finalizing a deal. Discussions with the EU are shaping up to be the biggest wild card. Two weeks ago, Trump threatened to hike tariffs to 50% on EU exports to the US at the start of this month, saying discussions with EU leaders were 'going nowhere.' Then, after speaking with EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen days later, he backed off. 'Countries would be happy to reach some deal with the US that lowers tariffs and involves some concessions that they can live with,' Obstfeld said. But the EU is 'certainly not going to modify their VAT (value-added tax) to get a deal with US.' Trump has repeatedly demanded the EU abandon these taxes, which he claims unfairly hurt American exports there. Even though Trump will probably meet with France's President Emmanuel Macron, Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni following their recent visit to the White House, trade isn't likely to be a major topic of discussion with them, given von der Leyen is the lead negotiator, said Lipsky. 'This creates a strange dynamic during the meetings.'
