UK Government urged to reconsider decision to cut cash for peace fund
The IFI was originally set up by the UK and Irish governments as an independent international organisation in 1986.
It delivers a range of peace and reconciliation initiatives across Northern Ireland and Irish border counties, including supporting communities to work towards removal of the remaining peace walls.
Sinn Fein North Belfast MP John Finucane said he is concerned about the move, and said he will raise it directly with Secretary of State Hilary Benn.
'It is extremely concerning that the British Government is to cut funding for IFI,' he said.
'IFI was established to promote peace, reconciliation and a better future for all communities across Ireland.
'Peace is hard-won and hard-fought. It can never be taken for granted, and crucial funds like this must continue to be supported.
'The British Government should be increasing funding in light of the withdrawal of US support, not imposing further hardship.
'I will be writing to British Secretary of State Hilary Benn, calling for his Government to reverse this decision and ensure IFI can continue its vital grassroots-led programmes.'
Responding, a UK Government spokesperson said: 'This Government inherited a very challenging fiscal position, and needed to take difficult but necessary decisions to place the public finances on a sustainable footing.
'As a result, the Government has decided not to continue with the £1 million contribution to the International Fund for Ireland in 2024-25.
'The Government remains supportive of the IFI's aims of promoting peace and reconciliation.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
12 minutes ago
- The Guardian
New Zealand to charge foreign tourists to visit most famous sites
New Zealand plans to start charging international tourists fees to enter its famous natural sites and will make it easier for businesses to operate on conservation land as part of a controversial proposal to 'unleash' growth on ecologically and culturally protected areas. The government plans to start charging foreign visitors NZ$20-40 ($12-24) per person to access some sites. Initially, those would probably include Cathedral Cove/Te Whanganui-a-Hei, Tongariro Crossing, Milford Track and Aoraki Mount Cook. The fees are likely to be imposed from 2027. The conservation minister, Tama Potaka, said those fees could generate NZ$62m a year 'so we can keep investing in the sites that underpin so much of our tourism sector'. The government's announcements form part of a wider shake-up of conservation law that will also make selling or exchanging conservation land easier and allow more activities to go ahead on conservation without needing a permit. 'In the spirit of saying yes to more jobs, more growth and higher wages', the government would 'unleash a fresh wave of concessions' including in tourism, agriculture and infrastructure at some locations, the prime minister, Christopher Luxon, said on Saturday. Conservation land is protected, publicly owned land and makes up a third of New Zealand territory. It covers areas with biodiversity, historic or cultural value. Some businesses such as ski fields and grazing already operated on conservation land but many other businesses struggled to gain the same permission, Luxon said. It is the latest policy that seeks to loosen regulation on natural sites and species to enable economic growth. In 2024, the government passed a law that could see contentious mining and infrastructure projects fast-tracked for approval. It has also proposed a law change to make it easier for companies to kill protected wildlife in order to pursue certain infrastructure projects. Conservation and climate initiatives have also faced budget cuts. But critics say the changes risk harming the environment and vulnerable species. New Zealand has high rates of endemic biodiversity but some species are in worrying decline, with a high proportion threatened or at risk of extinction. Green party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said Luxon was putting profit above the protection of nature. 'That tells us everything we need to know about who he thinks he works for. It's not regular people, future generations or a healthy environment,' she said in a statement to the Guardian. Nicola Toki, the chief executive of New Zealand's largest conservation organisation, Forest & Bird, said the latest reforms 'represent the most significant weakening of conservation law in a generation' and would increase pressure on vulnerable species. 'They shift the focus from protection to exploitation, dismantling the very purpose of our national parks and conservation lands.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
How war became a route to growth for the west
The UK Government's Strategic Defence Review in June promised expanded submarine, weapon, and drone production, integrated digital command, at least six new munitions factories to 'create more than 1000 new jobs' (perhaps familiar from the 'scrapping Trident is anti-worker claim against Scottish independence in the mid-2010s). It represents an increase of already-above-Nato-baseline defence spending to 3%, and, crucially, a 'whole-of-society approach' that involved 'widening participation in national resilience'. READ OUR DEFENCE MINI-SERIES This is necessitated, the review says, by multiple new hybrid threats – a staple rationalisation since the Cold War, as in David Cameron's 2013 claim that nuclear weapons were needed 'more than ever'. Against a background of population economic punishment, the tellingly-named 'sovereign warhead programme' needed another £15 billion – roughly the size of the 'black hole' agonised over by Labour last year, and also of the current nuclear overspend stated in that year. There has been some grim technocratic inevitability to this, particularly since 2008. As asset prices gradually became inflated by central bank money channelled into stagnant investments, leaving governments struggling to deliver growth and protect their own legitimacy, classical capitalism was relieved of any lingering responsibility to deliver actual improvement, and the very temporality of progress could be inherited by crisis realism. Or as the review enthusiastically puts it, 'constant innovation at wartime pace'. War becomes a final route to growth – one marked by the 52% increase in the BAE Systems share price between January and July. Moreover, post-2000s rearming has lacked much of the protest once coming from civil society. This has a lot to do with US tech giants combining investments in infotech, AI, and aerospace (Alphabet, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin), their war on attention, and their siloing of individuals, reducing their ability to share moral concerns. Attention capture has increasingly accompanied the rearming, directing even those far up the political chain away from long-term thinking (the scenario of Don't Look Up). Covid lockdowns were a great accelerator of this, with Silicon Valley's sifting and directing of communication – in an economy Mackenzie Wark has called 'vectoralist' – automatically extracting rent through proprietary algorithms, turbocharging inequality, effectively wrecking the economy for the population, and forcing the turn to war for growth. Post-2008 algorithmic silencing helps explain the eerie quiet over permacrisis as stability. As numerous nuclear commentators have noted, there is a paradox in claiming to defend democracy by concentrating means of apocalyptic violence in fewer and more secretive hands. Such a purely performative democracy is an admission of societal dysfunction and some kind of addiction. It leaves a defence realism that, in contrast to the Cold War, struggles to imagine apocalyptic war and so raises it as a political issue. Benoit Pelopidas has described a need for depictions of nuclear war keep civil society involved, and avoid a sleepwalk into extinction. For Elaine Scarry, this sleepwalking is the very function of 'out-of-ratio' weapons, which eclipse citizen participation in defence, and effectively 'delete the population'. Even George Orwell noted something similar after the 1945 atomic demonstration on the recalcitrant beyond of Atlantic commercial empire. Under the new Pax Americana, fighting had effectively been put out of populations' reach, 'whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance'. This submission to a cybernetics of extinction is what EP Thompson called exterminism, with technocratic governments finally captured by arms manufacturers promising growth and so political legitimacy. UK governments duly held on to nuclear weapons as a financial stabiliser even after the end of the Cold War, and through to the 2020s removal of the previous warhead cap, and as Timmon Milne Wallis describes, 'voted against, blocked or boycotted virtually every other multilateral nuclear disarmament initiative'. In British ideology, nuclear securitisation has always meant financial securitisation. Chancellor Alistair Darling, who would later front the anti-Scottish-independence organisation Better Together, reacted to the 2008 financial crisis by promoting [[Trident]] renewal as public investment. Keir Starmer echoed that this year when he described nuclear rearming as crucial to drive growth. But way beyond this, British authority has always depended on progressively shifting physical stakes in conflict to economic arbitration, writing populations out of society-as-economy. The 'disarming' enacted on 1740s Jacobites is also the disarming of Scarry's 'thermonuclear monarchy', in which the Lockean social contract degrades into the apocalyptic whims of small economic elites. A fully abstracted violence as a 'peaceful' proxy of citizen defence was even a pillar of a British welfare state – in fact from as early as 1941, when the Blitz-era MAUD Committee insisted atomic weapons had to be completed and used. Absolutised defence extended war togetherness even through the original 'austerity', finding funds for nukes and joining the whole population as a single target. In 2024 Starmer could comfortably appropriate this welfare terminology to describe Trident's ''triple lock', a term previously used for state pensions. This homeliness remains an issue in defining the militarisation of the economy as a problem. As Margaret Thatcher understood, the idea of the economy as a defence against politics and populations is deeply British, and can command patriotism even from a sceptical population. Mindfulness of the real violence being abstracted as growth will be crucial to any civil involvement. Michael Gardiner is author of Empire of Deterrence (2025), published by Repeater
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Why the Highlands and Islands will win from Scottish independence
The failure of the Scottish Government to invest in keeping our ferry fleet up to date has caused chaos and significant economic harm on our islands. This is acknowledged by the Government's setting up of a compensation fund, albeit that the scheme is described by many islanders as inadequate. Fergus Ewing rails with justification against the failure to fully dual the A9, Scotland's most dangerous road. Meanwhile here in the West Highlands voters voice their frustrations with the lamentable quality of our trunk roads, the A82, A83 and A85. Sorting the bottleneck at Pulpit Rock on the [[A82]] seems a very modest achievement for nearly 20 years of SNP government; the A83 at the Rest and be Thankful closes with monotonous regularity; and both the [[A82]] and the A85 were recently closed for almost a full day as a result of two separate road traffic incidents. Things are no better further north as residents on Skye and along the so-called North Coast 500 testify when they complain about tourists causing gridlock on the roads. Tourism is responsible for at least £11 billion of visitor spend and yet our investment in tourist-related infrastructure is wholly inadequate. The difficulties of the SNP Government in defending its record multiply the longer the party is in office and yet it is pitilessly caught on the horns of a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, it has to declare what a supremely good job they are doing of governing Scotland, on the other it has to argue devolution is inadequate and only independence will sort Scotland's problems. It seems that the SNP in recent years have done too much of the former and not enough of the latter. Doing both is difficult but not impossible. READ MORE: Tripadvisor award names Scottish attraction one of the best in world The real problem is of course a structural one. Scotland's system of government has been set up in a way that is almost guaranteed to prevent any possibility of good government. Tony Blair famously and gleefully declared that the Scottish Parliament was like a 'parish council.' George Robertson delighted in his notion that devolution would 'kill nationalism stone dead'. Whatever you might think of Tony and George, they are not stupid people. To paraphrase George Bush it is a mistake to 'misunderestimate' your opponents. The fact is that even now, after more than 25 years of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government has minimal and wholly inadequate borrowing powers. Despite the recent increase authorised by Secretary of State Ian Murray, now allowing £6 billion of accumulated capital borrowing, the Scottish Government has almost maxed out its borrowing capability. Just as homeowners take loans for significant home improvements, governments fund infrastructure by borrowing and that is a large part of the reason why most of Scotland's old and tired infrastructure hasn't been updated over the last 25 years. PFI has been wholly discredited and its replacement, the NPD (non-profit distributing public private partnerships) model is only marginally better. Neither come close to offering value for money. When it is considered that building a dual carriageway can cost up to £60 million per mile and that Glasgow's Death Star hospital cost almost £1bn to build, it can readily be seen how inadequate Scotland's borrowing powers are, when measured against the long-standing nationwide need to rebuild our tired and failing infrastructure. By comparison Westminster, like almost every other government, has huge borrowing powers, limited only by the markets and the possibility of inflation. UK Government debt currently stands at around £2.8 trillion but contrary to popular belief is lower than many comparable countries in pro rata terms. If Scotland's government had a population-based share of this borrowing capability it would be entirely possible to upgrade our infrastructure to approach that of equivalent modern countries. Furthermore, with only limited devolution of taxation, the Scottish Government's coffers barely benefit if growth is increased. There is little fiscal reward for economic success and therefore only the negligible possibility of establishing a virtuous circle where success builds on success and economic growth in turn gives rise to an increase in the tax take. The business sector knows that prudent investment can establish a virtuous cycle whereby wise investment more than pays for itself. This possibility is denied to the [[Scottish Government]] and Scotland's people are much the worse for this. READ MORE: I heard a lot of excitement during my recent Highlands visit Things are just as bad with local government. Our local authorities have significant borrowing powers but little incentive to invest. There is no general mechanism for prudent investment in local infrastructure to pay off financially. Indeed, as Highland Council's parking fines on [[Skye]] approach £500,000 per annum, one might argue that the opposite is the case. We are left then with only a democratic mechanism to motivate governments to invest both locally and nationally. In the Highlands and Islands, with relatively small populations compared to the central belt coupled with the ongoing scarcity of investment capital, proper investment in our infrastructure will always be an afterthought, as politicians seek to placate voters in areas where numbers are highest. In addition to being an election year, 2026 is also the 250th anniversary of the publication of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations' Perhaps as we approach the election we should recognise that devolution can never produce good government as the 'invisible hands' it has given rise to mitigate against the possibility. I am confident the great economist would agree with me on this point. That is why we need urgently to seek independence. No matter which party we vote for, under the status quo of devolution, things, in the long term, are not going to get better. Mike MacKenzie was an SNP MSP between 2011-16 representing the Highlands and Islands region
