UK faces calls for 5% GDP defence spend, ahead of PM's meeting with Nato chief
Mark Rutte, the secretary general of the alliance, said on Thursday he is proposing Nato members spend 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) on defence.
Mr Rutte, who will visit the UK next week to meet the Prime Minister, said members will be expected to spend 3.5% on the military, with a further 1.5% on defence-related measures.
The commitment dwarfs Sir Keir's current defence plans, through which the UK would spend 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with an 'ambition' to raise this to 3% in the next parliament, a period which could stretch to 2034.
Mr Rutte is said to be pushing for the target to be met by 2032, but speaking to reporters in Brussels, he suggested there was a need to 'consult' member countries on the details of a deadline.
At a press conference, Mr Rutte said: 'I will propose an overall investment plan that will total 5% of GDP in defence investment and 3.5% of GDP for core defence spending.'
He said this was to meet new 'capability targets' that ministers agreed on at a meeting earlier on Thursday, as well as 1.5% per year in 'defence and security-related investments like infrastructure and industry'.
Asked if he could ensure countries would meet the commitment over time, Mr Rutte said he had a 'cunning plan' to hold political leaders to account, 'that nations will commit to yearly plans showing the increase each year to make sure that you come to the new target of 5%'.
This would prevent a 'hockey stick' on a graph of spending over time, where it suddenly ramps up towards the end, he added.
The US, which currently spends 3.4% of GDP on defence, is also being asked to meet the commitment, Mr Rutte said.
'The US is committed to increase defence spending to 5%,' he added.
Asked about a timeline for the commitment, Mr Rutte said he did not want to 'go into more details', adding: 'Obviously, allies will have discussions amongst each other.
'We will consult with each other on some of these details. For example, what is the end date that you want to have reached it?'
Amid pressure from Nato to ramp up spending beyond Sir Keir's current plans, US defence secretary Pete Hegseth has said he was sure the UK was 'going to get there'.
'We think everyone is going to get there, we really do. It's important they do. It's important that the UK gets there,' Mr Hegseth told reporters.
We will continue to protect our people and our way of life. To do this, we must increase defence spending to make NATO a stronger, fairer, and more lethal Alliance #DefMin pic.twitter.com/UBEtdjps9e
— NATO (@NATO) June 5, 2025
Elsewhere, Mr Hegseth declined to name countries not yet committed to the 5% pledge, but then proceeded to name those he claimed were committed, including France, Germany, the Baltic and Nordic countries, Poland, Greece and Hungary.
Downing Street said it would not 'get ahead of' the Nato leaders' summit in the Hague later this month.
A Number 10 spokesman said: 'The Prime Minister is clear that Europe must step up on defence and security, and we are proud to be leading the way with our Nato-first focused SDR, the commitment of our nuclear deterrent and nearly all of our armed forces to Nato and our historic uplift to defence spending.
'But I'm not going to get ahead of the summit in a couple of weeks time.'
During his meeting with Mr Rutte on Monday, the Prime Minister is likely to raise the question of how 'we can ensure all allies meet their stated pledges in support of our collective defence', according to Downing Street.
As well as his talks with Sir Keir, the former Dutch prime minister will visit Sheffield Forgemasters with Defence Secretary John Healey, and give a speech at Chatham House.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump tells German leader D-Day was 'not a pleasant day for you'
He reminded Trump their meeting was taking place a day before the 81st anniversary of D-Day, when Allied forces, most of them U.S. troops, invaded Normandy, France, marking the beginning of the end of World War II and the defeat of Nazi Germany. More: 'We had a job' to do: Humble veteran, 100, recalls D-Day 81 years later The U.S. could play such a role in the Russia-Ukraine war, said Merz. "We are having June 6th tomorrow, this is D-Day anniversary, when the Americans once ended a war in Europe," Merz said. "That was not a pleasant day for you," Trump responded. "This was not a great day." More: 'Sometimes you have to let them fight': Trump compares Russia, Ukraine to brawling children Merz replied: "In the long run, Mr. President, this was the liberation of my country from a Nazi dictator." D-Day, on June 6, 1944, marked a pivotal moment in World War II, bringing together the land, air and sea forces of the Allied armies in the largest amphibious invasion in history. Nearly 160,000 Allied troops landed on D-Day - more than 4,400 of whom died in the assault. The German leader was in town to talk about a range of issues from increased NATO spending, trade and applying "more pressure on Russia" to end its three-year-old war on Ukraine. More: WWII bombs found in Cologne, Germany prompt evacuations "We know what we owe you... this is the reason why I'm saying that America is again in a very strong position to do something on this war and ending this war," he said. The chancellor later reported he was "extraordinarily happy" with the Trump meeting. Merz was not the first world leader to encounter an awkward situation in the Oval Office. Watch: Trump photo of dead 'White farmers' is from Congo, not South Africa, video shows Last month, Trump confronted South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office saying White South Africans are the victims of "genocide" - an accusation the South African government and human rights experts say is not supported by evidence. And in February, Trump and Vice President JD Vance ambushed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy before live cameras in the Oval Office, accusing him of ingratitude for U.S. support.
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Immigration warning over 'less than welcoming' statements
The tone of Sir Keir's remarks on May 12 was, as observed by Mr Sheerin and many others, surely something of a surprise. And it was unexpected even with an awareness - having covered this key issue closely over months and years - of Labour's developing and lamentable stance on immigration. The Prime Minister declared: 'Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they're written down, often they're not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to one another. Now, in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' The 'island of strangers' was a striking turn of phrase. Sir Keir went on: 'So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse, that encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you're not championing growth, you're not championing justice, or however else people defend the status quo. You're actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.' Maybe with the benefit of hindsight the Prime Minister's remarks, even though they could have been uttered just as easily by the Tory Brexiters, should not have been quite so much of a shock as they were. After all, Labour has embraced the key elements of the Conservatives' hard Brexit: loss of free movement of people between the UK and European Economic Area nations and the ending of the frictionless trade from which the country previously benefited enormously when it was part of the single market. Nevertheless, Sir Keir's tone was surely surprisingly dismal, even given all of this. Not only did we have the reference to 'an island of strangers' but also this declaration: 'This strategy will finally take back control of our borders and close the book on a squalid chapter for our politics, our economy, and our country.' What seemed clear from Sir Keir's utterings was that populism most certainly did not end with the exit of Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak from the prime minister post. Sir Keir's tone contrasted so starkly with Mr Sheerin's reasoned appraisal of the Prime Minister's remarks and Labour's plans on immigration. We had this from Sir Keir: 'We do have to ask why parts of our economy seem almost addicted to importing cheap labour rather than investing in the skills of people who are here and want a good job in their community. Sectors like engineering, where visas have rocketed while apprenticeships have plummeted.' You would imagine Mr Sheerin, as a veteran of the engineering sector, knows a lot more about the specifics than Sir Keir. And it is worth observing the Scottish Engineering chief executive is passionate about people in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK being trained as engineers. He would love to see the skills shortages which are posing such a challenge to member companies of Scottish Engineering and others in the sector solved. Mr Sheerin is not a politician - just someone with deep knowledge of the Scottish engineering sector. So what did the Scottish Engineering chief have to say in his quarterly report published on Friday? Read more He declared that he found the UK Government's 'latest pronouncements on immigration disappointing', highlighting the detrimental impact on companies of 'statements that feel less than welcoming'. Mr Sheerin hammered home his view that raising minimum qualification levels from Higher equivalents to degree level would 'leave out the skilled trades and crafts roles where we are already in shortest supply: welders, fabricators, electricians, pipefitters, CNC (computer numerical control) machinists to name a few'. That is surely a crucial point. And it is worth emphasising Mr Sheerin's observation that people skilled in these roles are 'already in shortest supply'. Mr Sheerin also noted: 'The shortening of the graduate visa scheme reducing the right to work from two years to 18 months after graduating will not only hit our education sector but also reduce the attractiveness of the scheme for companies who will have a shorter timeline to decide whether to invest in the process to extend the visa of the employee.' This is another good point. And the Scottish Engineering chief executive declared: 'Whilst I recognise that this [immigration] is a contentious political issue across the UK for a whole range of reasons, in engineering and manufacturing in Scotland the reality is that immigration is a vital source of skills and experience that cannot be replaced overnight. These skills levels take years to build - and we should be building them - but closing off the supply before putting in place the actions to do that is another example of an action that will challenge the stated ambition of growing our economy.' The time horizon with regard to building skills levels is important. It might not chime with that of politicians such as Sir Keir, who seems at pains to bang the drum on immigration as Nigel Farage's Reform UK makes a big noise on this front. However, it is a simple factual point that engineering skills do take years to build. Mr Sheerin declared that a frustration for him in Labour's immigration pronouncements was that 'whereas there is considerable detail on how we plan to restrict and close this supply of skills, on the laudable stated aim that we will replace the loss with trained or upskilled UK-born workers, the detail is missing on how that will be achieved'. He added: 'And there is no detail that recognises that engineering skills take between four and six years to get to a starting level of competency. It does not seem an unreasonable request for the get-well plan to carry at least the same level of detail as the take-it-away plan.' This seems like an absolutely fair summation of the problems with Labour's populist immigration proposals. If you were asked to choose whether you think it is Sir Keir or Mr Sheerin who is on the money in relation to immigration policy and its effect on engineering and the broader economy, it would surely be the easiest of questions to answer, any day of the week.
The Independent
10 hours ago
- The Independent
UK could face up to £30bn of tax rises to fund defence spending boost, economist says
Rachel Reeves could be forced to raise up to £30bn through tax rises or funding cuts as the chancellor seeks to meet Labour's pledge to boost defence spending, an economist has claimed. The government has promised to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, and has an 'ambition' – but no firm commitment – to raise it to 3 per cent in the next parliament, after 2029. But the UK's Nato allies are expected also to push for a fresh target of 3.5 per cent, with the alliance's chief Mark Rutte pushing for a 'dramatic increase', with discussions over a possible 5 per cent target – as called for by Donald Trump – also taking place. And Sir Keir Starmer this week vowed to make Britain 'a battle-ready, armour-clad nation' as a long-awaited defence review called for major upgrades to the UK's military. While the major proposals were based around Labour's current spending pledges for 2027 and the next parliament, the report warned that 'as we live in such turbulent times it may be necessary to go faster' on increasing the UK's defence capabilities. Michael Saunders, a senior economic adviser at the Oxford Economics consultancy, suggested that the government could take steps towards this in the chancellor's next Budget. 'To establish a more credible path to defence spending 'considerably north of 3 per cent' next decade, the government may decide in the autumn Budget that it needs to add some extra spending within the five-year OBR forecast horizon,' said Mr Saunders. 'It's not hard to see pressures for extra fiscal tightening of £15bn to £30bn,' he told The Telegraph. Fiscal tightening involves either raising taxes or cutting government spending. Earlier this week, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), also warned the only way to pay for the increased defence budget would be through 'chunky tax rises' as the government grapples with other key areas of public spending. He told Times Radio: 'You really do have to ask that question, what are the choices that you're going to make? Bluntly, it really does seem to me that the only choice that is available, is some really quite chunky tax increases to pay for it.' According to the IFS, hitting the 3 per target by 2030 would require an extra £17bn pounds between now and then which is yet to be accounted for. Sir Keir has previously said that increasing defence spending to 2.5 per cent would mean 'spending £13.4bn more on defence every year from 2027'. The Office for Budget Responsibility has also estimated that reaching 3 per cent by the next parliament would cost an additional £17.3bn in 2029/30. Speaking in parliament as the defence review was unveiled this week, Lib Dem defence spokesperson Helen Maguire said: 'It is staggering that we still don't have an answer to the vital question: 'Where is the money coming from?' The government has flip-flopped a number of times on 3 per cent.' On Tuesday, defence secretary John Healey failed to rule out tax rises to make Britain 'war ready' and insisted he was '100 per cent confident' the 3 per cent target would be met — but struggled to say how it would be paid for. It came as defence sources were reported to expect that Britain will be forced to sign up to a target to hike defence spending to 3.5 per cent by 2035 at a Nato summit later this month in a bid to appease the US president.
