Italy citizenship referendum polarises country
Sonny Olumati was born in Rome and has lived in Italy all his life but the country he calls home does not recognise him as its own.To Italy, Sonny is Nigerian, like his passport, and the 39-year-old is only welcome as long as his latest residence permit."I've been born here. I will live here. I will die here," the dancer and activist tells me in what he calls "macaroni" Italian-English beneath the palm trees of a scruffy Roman park."But not having citizenship is like... being rejected from your country. And I don't think this is a feeling we should have".That is why Sonny and others have been campaigning for a "Yes" vote in a national referendum on Sunday and Monday that proposes halving the time required to apply for Italian citizenship.Cutting the wait from 10 years to five would bring this country in line with most others in Europe.Giorgia Meloni, Italy's hard-right prime minister, has announced she will boycott the vote, declaring the citizenship law already "excellent" and "very open".Other parties allied to her are calling on Italians to go to the beach instead of the polling station.Sonny will not be taking part either. Without citizenship, he is not entitled to vote.
The question of who gets to be Italian is a sensitive one.Large numbers of migrants and refugees arrive in the country each year helped across the Mediterranean from North Africa by smuggling gangs.Meloni's populist government has made a big deal about cutting the number of arrivals.But this referendum is aimed at those who have travelled legally for work to a country with a rapidly shrinking and ageing population.The aim is limited: to speed up the process for getting citizenship, not ease the strict criteria."Knowledge of the Italian language, not having criminal charges, continuous residence et cetera - all the various requirements remain the same," explains Carla Taibi of the liberal party More Europe, one of several backers of the referendum.The reform would affect long-term foreign residents already employed in Italy: from those on factory production lines in the north to those caring for pensioners in plush Rome neighbourhoods.Their children aged under 18 would also be naturalised.Up to 1.4 million people could qualify for citizenship immediately, with some estimates ranging higher."These people live in Italy, study and work and contribute. This is about changing the perception of them so they are not strangers anymore - but Italian," argues Taibi.The reform would also have practical implications.As a non-Italian, Sonny cannot apply for a public sector job, and even struggled to get a driving license.When he was booked for hit reality TV show Fame Island last year, he ended up arriving two weeks late on set in Honduras because he had had so many problems getting the right paperwork.
For a long time, Meloni ignored the referendum entirely.Italy's publicly owned media, run by a close Meloni ally, have also paid scant attention to the vote.There is no substantive "No" campaign, making it hard to have a balanced debate.But the real reason appears strategic: for a referendum to be valid, more than half of all voters need to turn out."They don't want to raise awareness of the significance of the referendum," Professor Roberto D'Alimonte of Luis University in Rome explains. "That's rational, to make sure that the 50% threshold won't be reached."The prime minister eventually announced she would turn up at a polling station "to show respect for the ballot box" - but refuse to cast a vote."When you disagree, you also have the option of abstaining," Meloni told a TV chat show this week, after critics accused her of disrespecting democracy.Italy's citizenship system was "excellent", she argued, already granting citizenship to more foreign nationals than most countries in Europe: 217,000 last year, according to the national statistics agency, Istat.But about 30,000 of those were Argentines with Italian ancestry on the other side of the world, unlikely even to visit.Meanwhile, Meloni's coalition partner, Roberto Vannacci of the far-right League, accused those behind the referendum of "selling off our citizenship and erasing our identity".I ask Sonny why he thinks his own application for citizenship has taken over two decades."It's racism," he replies immediately.At one point his file was lost completely, and he has now been told his case is "pending"."We have ministers who talk about white supremacy - racial replacement of Italy," the activist recalls a 2023 comment by the agriculture minister from Meloni's own party. "They don't want black immigration and we know it. I was born here 39 years ago so I know what I say."It is an accusation the prime minister has denied repeatedly.
Insaf Dimassi defines herself as "Italian without citizenship"."Italy let me grow up and become the person I am today, so not being seen as a citizen is extremely painful and frustrating," she explains from the northern city of Bologna where she is studying for a PhD.Insaf's father travelled to Italy for work when she was a baby, and she and her mother then joined him. Her parents finally got Italian citizenship 20 days after Insaf turned 18. That meant she had to apply for herself from scratch, including proving a steady income.Insaf chose to study instead."I arrived here at nine months old, and maybe at 33 or 34 - if all goes well - I can finally be an Italian citizen," she says, exasperated.She remembers exactly when the significance of her "outsider" status hit home: it was when she was asked to run for election alongside a candidate for mayor in her hometown.When she shared the news with her parents, full of excitement, they had to remind her she was not Italian and was not eligible."They say it's a matter of meritocracy to be a citizen, that you have to earn it. But more than being myself, what do I have to demonstrate?" Insaf wants to know."Not being allowed to vote, or be represented, is being invisible."On the eve of the referendum, students in Rome wrote a call to the polls on the cobbles of a city square."Vote 'YES' on the 8th and 9th [of June]," they spelled out in giant cardboard letters.With a government boycott and such meagre publicity, the chances of hitting the 50% turnout threshold seem slim.But Sonny argues that this vote is just the beginning."Even if they vote 'No', we will stay here - and think about the next step," he says. "We have to start to talk about the place of our community in this country."Additional reporting by Giulia Tommasi
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Britain is heading for utter oblivion. Here is why
At the moment I feel like Britain has a confluence of problems. There is no one single issue which is damaging the nation; there are several. And from demographics to immigration, family background to welfare, these huge challenges are all reinforcing each other. Disastrous demographics Even if we do nothing to restrict migration, the UK's demographic outlook threatens to make this a miserable country in multiple ways. We are a rapidly ageing society with a collapsing birth rate; births hit a record low last year. If you go back 20 years and apply today's spending and tax rates to the demographics of 2004 – changing nothing else, that would give the Chancellor an extra £84 billion a year to play with, enough to cut the basic rate of tax by about 13p in the pound. Unless something is done, every budget will feel like an austerity budget. Taxes per person will go up; public services will crumble under the load of an old population. To counteract these trends with migration without fixing the underlying problem is impossible – you would require totally implausible and ever-accelerating amounts of migration to make up for it. Ultimately, you have to fix the hole in the boat rather than just try to bail out water faster and faster. But the direct fiscal implications are only part of the story. There's every reason to think an older population will mean a less dynamic economy. Japan gets many things right – their productivity growth is not at all bad. But, nonetheless, over the last 30 years growth in GDP per capita is worse than anywhere in the G7 except Italy – and this is just because so many people are retired. Ageing and the growing birth gap will change our society. More people will grow old without kids or younger relatives. The ONS says the number of women over 80 in Britain who have never had children will triple over the next fifteen years alone. We are on course to become a very lonely country. Demographics are the driver of history. Today, South Korea and Israel are both developed countries. But at current fertility rates every 100 Israelis can expect 210 grandchildren and the Koreans just 15. South Korea has created an economic miracle in my lifetime, but unless they fix this, that's basically the end of the country. If we in the UK had kept the same fertility rate we had in 2010, then for every 100 people we would expect them to have 92 grandchildren. But the rate is dropping sharply: at current rates it would be just 55 grandchildren. Gulp. Mass migration & breakneck social change Among private renters in Greater London, around a third are white British. In greater London's schools just over one in five school children are white British. The old conversations about 'integration' and 'assimilation ' don't really even make sense any more. In many places people cannot really integrate into the traditional majority culture because it doesn't exist any more. The effects of this are non-linear. Britain's political system has held sectarianism at bay for a long time, but the last election saw sectarian MPs elected and similar candidates come close in many other places. The local elections saw the victory of Azhar Ali as an independent in Rochdale, having been suspended by Labour for anti-Semitism last year. They also saw the election of Maheen Kamran – a young woman who pledged to 'end free-mixing' between men and women. Worries about a 'two tier' society are growing, driven by various forms of unequal treatment based on skin colour. The pace of change has been astonishing – around one in 60 people in the UK arrived in the country in the last year, and around one in 25 in just the last four years. The ONS predicts that all population growth will in future come from net migration, with deaths in the UK outnumbering births. Even before the recent migration boom, the 2021 Census found over a million people could not speak English well or at all. Near where I live, English was not the main language of 30 per cent of people in Leicester back in 2021; in several London Boroughs the figure was even higher. Oikophobia and the undermining of anything we can unite around What we really badly need in the face of such unprecedented changes is a really strong, confident, unifying national culture that people can assimilate into as much as what we have got is the very opposite. Most of Britain's cultural institutions are locked into a highly self-hating mindset. On Remembrance Sunday 2021, the Imperial War Museum in London allowed a rap group to perform a piece criticising Winston Wellcome Collection in London closed its 'Medicine Man' exhibition, which displayed objects collected by Henry Wellcome, after declaring it 'racist, sexist, and ableist.' The Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford removed its display of shrunken heads and other ethnographic artefacts from public view, citing their role in perpetuating 'racist stereotypes' about indigenous cultures. The Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge updated its exhibition labels to highlight issues of 'racism, sexism, and class disparity', while the National Trust has done similarly across its properties. There's an entire industry trying to make everything about slavery. Tate Britain's 'Hogarth and Europe' exhibition included a label for a William Hogarth self-portrait that suggested the chair he sat in, possibly made from colonial timbers, could 'stand in for all those unnamed black and brown people enabling the society that supports his vigorous creativity.' Jane Austen and William Shakespeare's old houses have been 'decolonised'. The Royal Institution's Faraday Museum introduced a display examining the 'racist,' 'slave-trading,' or 'problematic' links of celebrated scientists like Sir Humphry Davy. The Church of England has agreed to pay £100 million in slavery 'reparations.' This sustained campaign of demoralisation by cultural elites is also reflected in many educational institutions – and it's working. Young people have come to dislike Britain more than they did 20 years ago, and are more likely to think it racist, disunited and shameful. Social breakdown and welfarism More than 40 per cent of children of GCSE age live in lone parent households in Southwark, Lambeth, Islington, Lewisham, Hackney, Knowsley, Blackpool, Liverpool and Greenwich. There are whole groups for whom this is the norm: 63 per cent of kids from a Caribbean background were in lone parent households in 2021. And many two adult households are re-formed. In 2023, 46 per cent of first-born children aged 14 years old did not live with both natural parents – roughly twice the rate of the 1970s. Children are much more likely to have a smartphone than live with their biological father. Sometimes people split up. Sometimes that's better than not doing. But the dramatic growth in the number of families that split is a huge change. And it has lifelong consequences that start early. Among 5–10 year olds, 6 per cent of children with married parents experienced diagnosable mental health issues compared to 12 per cent of children with cohabiting parents and 18 per cent of children raised by a lone parent. Similar trends are apparent for school attainment, interaction with the criminal justice system and so on. Social breakdown interacts with welfarism, with arrows running in both directions: lone parent households are more likely to require welfare, and the welfare state incentivises social breakdown – the benefits system creates a strong couple penalty for those in work, which creates a strong incentive to live apart. The scale of the welfare problem is breathtaking. There are nearly half a million people living in households where no one has ever worked – this has doubled since winter 2020. There are almost one million young people not in education, employment or training. Around one in ten working age adults are not in work because they are unemployed or long term sick. 4.1 million people in England and Wales are on an incapacity or disability benefit – that's one in seven adults in the North East and Wales: the big thing driving up working age claims is the growth of various forms of mental disorder and fragility. We've gone from 2 per cent of 16 year olds claiming in 2002, to 8 per cent in 2023. That's about two kids in every average classroom. Historically, people have (unsurprisingly) got sicker as they age, but 16 year olds are now as likely to be claiming to be sick as 50 year olds. An ONS breakdown found that in 2022, nearly two thirds (63 per cent) of those aged 16 to 34 cited either mental illness or 'depression, bad nerves or anxiety' as their reason for being long term sick. The cost of this is accelerating – real terms spending on sickness and disability benefits is forecast to grow to £100 bn by the end of this parliament, up from £50 billion in 2008. Despite this, the present government has abandoned plans to tighten the Work Capability Assessment, which means 400,000 more people will be signed off as unfit to work. Despite promises of reform, the OBR notes that welfare spending will continue to rise overall, and since the Spring Statement the government has also announced plans to spend a further £3.5 billion a year removing the two-child cap on benefits. The Mental Health Culture, together with the shift to a smartphone-based childhood, is likely to accelerate this. Well-meaning people have created a culture in which young people are constantly prompted to worry about their mental health. Social breakdown and welfarism have a kind of momentum too. When I was in government, DWP officials used to say claims are contagious. People copy what those around them are doing. In many parts of the UK we are now several generations into self-reinforcing cycles of deprivation and dysfunction. A beached, hollowed-out economy The OBR's forecast for growth in living standards is pretty bleak, and got worse as a result of Rachel Reeves's first budget: there are numerous reasons for these problems – the growth of welfare; an unselective migration policy; bad demographics and an ageing society; the loading up of the struggling economy with costly objectives like net zero; issues with state capacity and the furring up of the economic arteries by excessive planning processes. 1 Amazingly, public services productivity fell from 1997-2010. It then grew to 2019, but the pandemic reversed this progress, meaning the ONS measure of productivity in 2024 was at 1997 levels. That's mindblowing stagnation. As well as failing on the basics, the UK seems to be poorly placed for the future. One reason countries in Asia have so dramatically caught up with or overtaken the UK in terms of living standards since the 1970s is that they have created a successful innovation-industrial ecosystem, and consciously aimed to grow their capabilities. In contrast, the UK has deindustrialised more than many other developed countries, struggles to scale successful companies, and has steadily lost the areas of technological leadership it had. Our research budget goes on academic stuff, mainly in universities, with excruciating bureaucracy, while Asia dominates the kind of applied, industrial research that leads to economic growth. You can see that in the way the UK's share of patent applications has collapsed – the graph below needs a log scale so you can even see the UK, but we file only one patent for every 16 the South Koreans do, even though South Korea is a smaller country. Even in 2021 China filed 123 applications for every one we did – and the gap is probably bigger now. Unless something changes, the future will be made in Asia, not here. The confluence But the really worrying thing is the confluence of all this – the way all these problems reinforce one another. Arrows run between them in all directions like a Jeremy Deller mindmap. Unless things change, the demographic crisis will doom the economy, and with it drag down the public realm – lower growth, less money for public spending, worse public spaces. Unselective mass migration creates a burden on the economy. The asylum system alone costs around £7 billion a year. Migrants move to poorer places, and many of the places that have had the most migration have the greatest problems with welfarism, social breakdown and the decay of the public realm. It is harder to create a sense of shared purpose when fewer people have much history in the country. A more divided society makes it harder to solve the other problems. Why come to, or stay in, such a country? Why fight for it when the chips are down? Elite cultural self-hate and two-tier justice pour petrol on the sparks of conflict that rapid migration and social change inevitably creates. Social breakdown and welfarism cramp the economy – welfare payments drain the public funds we need for investment in the future, while scuzzy places don't attract investment. The soft-touch welfare state helps to drive the worst kinds of illegal immigration and creates a more divided society. A faltering economy, meanwhile, makes it harder to do the things we need to do to tackle the demographic crisis. Weak growth compounds welfarism and erodes the public realm – from potholed roads to the urban streets that are covered in stickers and graffiti and smell of wee or weed. In a struggling economy the dynamics of a newly hyperdiverse society become more dangerous.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The world has never been more volatile. Britons must be prepared to fight for their country
When Lord Robertson was asked to co-write a strategic review of Britain's defence, he had one slightly peculiar objective. 'It was suggested at the beginning that the objective of our report should be to stop The Daily Telegraph judging Britain's defence by the number of people in the Army,' the former Nato secretary general said. 'And I think we've done that,' he remarked in an interview with The Telegraph 's Battle Lines podcast this week. The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) is a 144-page, 45,000 word prescription for 'root and branch' reform of Britain's military. Officially, it is an instruction to the Government. But at another level, it is addressed to us, the British public. The message is stark: how much are you prepared to sacrifice to make this country safe? That implies a demand no British government has had to make of voters since Winston Churchill promised blood, toil, tears and sweat. It's a reflection of the danger of the current geopolitical moment. And it is why Robertson believes he has made the case in this review for looking beyond numbers of troops, submarines and fighter planes that previous reports have focused on. The real issues, he argues, are much more crucial. 'Too many of the interviews I've had this week have been about the money. Whereas actually this report fundamentally transforms the way in which we do defence. 'It's a strategic review, it is designed for 2035, not just for what we're facing at the present moment. 'It's to do with what we are going to need in future: agile forces, grasping the whole of technology, capturing the innovations that are coming. I think a lot of people have missed that.' Lord Robertson has spent a career in and around defence and security. As Tony Blair's first defence secretary he authored the new Labour government's own strategic review in 1998. He went on to serve as secretary general of Nato from 1999-2003. So he was a natural choice when John Healey, the defence secretary, was hiring independent reviewers to take a new look at the state of British defence. His co-authors were General Sir Richard Barrons, an accomplished soldier who is best known for publicly warning of the current crisis in the forces 10 years ago, and Fiona Hill, the British-American foreign policy expert who advised Donald Trump on Russia during his first term as president. Both have a reputation as the best in their respective fields. The report they have come up with – readably penned by Hill, who Robertson strongly hints was by far the best writer of the three – is both ambitious, and frighteningly blunt. Three years into the biggest war in Europe in 1945, they warn, Britain's Armed Forces remain shaped by the post Cold-War era of small wars, far away, against irregular or poorly armed opponents. 'Exquisite' capabilities have masked the 'hollowing out' of the Armed Forces' war fighting capability. Stockpiles are inadequate. The 'strategic base lacks capacity and resilience following years of under investment. Medical services lack the capacity for managing a mass-casualty conflict'. Poor recruitment and retention, shoddy accommodation, falling morale, and cultural challenges have created a military 'workforce crisis'. And in addition, the relationship with industry is still stuck in the Cold War. 'Business as usual is not an option,' they write. Their plan is to bring Britain to war-fighting readiness over the next 10 years. Will we have that long? General Carsten Breuer, the head of the German army, said this month that Nato could face a Russian attack by 2029. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British defence think tank, found in a report in May that the attack could come as early as 2027, in the admittedly worst-case scenario of America leaving Nato and removing troops from Europe. 'The decade [to 2035] is what we were working to. That was our view about what we needed to do,' says Lord Robertson. 'For a peer adversary attacking the United Kingdom, which is what we're talking about, it would probably require that long for the existing potential adversaries to reconstitute. But it can be earlier, and therefore the model that we have created and are promoting can be accelerated.' Of the 62 individual proposals in this 'root and branch' reform plan, many are of operational implications that will mostly be of interest to those already in uniform. The Royal Navy, it says, will need a greater submarine and anti-submarine warfare capability to protect our underwater pipelines and cables. The RAF is called on to deliver deeper air and missile defence, expand its use of drones, and could be involved in 'discussions with the United States and Nato on the potential benefits and feasibility of enhanced UK participation in Nato's nuclear mission'. Some have taken that to mean mounting air-dropped nuclear-bombs on F-35As jets, but Robertson says: 'It's not in the report because we found a huge diversity of opinion about that, ranging from the best nuclear platform to the suitability of the F35.' The biggest implications are for the Army, the least modernised of the three services and the one most depleted by donating kit to Ukraine. It will have to increase its armoured brigades from two to three, implying a massive investment and overhaul. But woven through all of this is a theme of relevance to everyone living in Britain, whatever their relationship to the Armed Forces. The new era, they say, requires an 'all-of-society' approach. Forget recent decades. The Falklands, Gulf, and Afghanistan wars did not require anything close to the scale of national preparation for war, home defence, resilience, and industrial mobilisation that they have in mind. 'We need to have a national conversation among the British people about your defence and security, how safe do people want to be, and what you are willing to pay in order to be properly safe,' says Robertson. 'Our adversaries don't believe in business as usual, and therefore what we are doing can't be business as usual.' Nor will it be business as usual for Robertson, who left Nato in 2003 and at the age of 79 could be forgiven for wanting to spend more time at his home in Dunblane with his wife Sandra. Instead, he says, he and the other reviewers will be visiting 'various parts of the country' to make that case for a new defence pact to the general public. 'The volatility of world events is unprecedented' It is a function of just how fundamentally the world has changed since the defence review he last authored nearly 30 years ago. 'We had 10,000 troops committed to Northern Ireland in 1998, either in the province or ready to go there. Nato had just signed the Nato-Russia Founding Act with Boris Yeltsin. China was in the shadows, wasn't really a big player at all, and we thought globalisation was a great idea.' 'So that world has gone. We now have a great power competition playing out in front of our eyes,' he adds. 'We have geostrategic shifts taking place all the time in terms of industry and commerce. The volatility of events in the world is unprecedented, probably in history.' For that reason, the SDR devotes several pages to home defence and resilience, ensuring continuity of national life in the event of infrastructure failures and 'build national preparedness and resilience, ensuring the UK can withstand attacks and recover quickly'. Its prescriptions include renewing the contract between the Forces and the country, enhancing protection for critical national infrastructure, making sure that industry knows what is expected of it in case of war. All of this will be useless without one crucial, but unquantifiable factor. Just as nuclear deterrence depends on the willingness of national leaders to use it, whole-of-society deterrence will only be as credible as our own – that is, ordinary people's – willingness to endure hardship our enemies can inflict upon us. Those hardships will be enormous. Experience from Ukraine shows that full scale war involves electricity, water, and energy supplies being targeted. There will be shortages of fuel and possibly of food. We have already had tasters of the chaos to come. 'If the lights go out in this studio and this building here today,' Lord Robertson says, gesturing around The Telegraph 's podcast studio, 'do we know how to get out of it?' I'm not entirely sure I do. He carries on: 'A few weeks ago, the whole of Spain and Portugal lost power. Two modern European countries lost power. Paralysis was the result. 'A transformer blows up and Heathrow airport, the busiest airport in the world, has to close down for 24 hours. Something like 90 per cent of the data that we are using in this country and in Europe as a whole, comes in under sea cables. ' About 77 per cent of the UK's gas imports come from Norway and one in one pipeline. So the vulnerabilities from cyber and from the grey zone, disinformation, targeted assassinations, electoral interference, all of that is part and parcel of today's world.' Once confrontation moves from the grey zone to open war, there is a question of casualties. How would the British public respond, I ask, to cruise missiles slamming into Catterick Garrison leaving dozens, possibly hundreds, of young soldiers dead? Or glide bombs ripping women and children into pieces as they shop? Or a Royal Navy ship being lost with all hands? Are we, as a nation, psychologically and culturally prepared to shoulder the kind of hardship and grief unseen since 1945? 'We'll need to make sure that that is the case and remind people about what it is. And I think that's the job of the media. It's the job of politicians. 'And we need to raise awareness of the issue. What is it you want, what is the insurance premium that will keep you and your family safe in the future. 'But we in the review are talking about how to avoid it. Deterrence is the question. You know, we all go to our beds at night safe because of Article 5 of the Nato treaty.' However Nato – the bedrock of British defence – is under strain. And Britain's relationship with its allies is about to be tested at the annual alliance summit in the Hague later this month. Robertson, Barrons and Hill wrote the Review to parameters set by the government: specifically, a commitment to raise defence spending from 2.3 per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027 and to 3 per cent in the next parliament when economic conditions allow. Nato officials told The Telegraph this week that they expect Starmer to commit to 3.5 per cent at the alliance's annual summit in the Hague. Donald Trump and his defence secretary Pete Hegseth are demanding a much higher bench mark of 5 per cent. Lord Richard Dannatt, a former head of the British Army, said earlier this week that postponing three per cent target is 'tantamount to back in 1937 saying to Adolf Hitler 'please don't attack us until 1946 because we won't be ready'.' Although Robertson argues the money question is a distraction from the 'guts' of the review, it is not difficult to see where the tight budget has constrained ambition. 'Ten times more lethal' The review clearly states that none of the three Services – Army, Royal Navy, or Royal Air Force can afford to lose any more highly trained and equipped regulars. Yet the authors' proposed remedy is strangely modest. For example, it says the Army should have a total strength of 100,000, consisting of the current nominal 73,000 regulars (the smallest since the Napoleonic wars) and the difference made up by an expansion of the number of reservists. It argues that new technology can make this small force '10 times more lethal' than it is now. And it is true that automation is changing warfare. The audacious Ukrainian operation to strike Russian airbases last weekend, points out Robertson, is a perfect example of the kind of thing Britain should be planning to carry out – and defend against. But high intensity peer conflict still involves casualties. Heavy casualties. In the trenches in Donbas, there is a constant threat of shrapnel, bullet, and blast wounds. Drones may now be inflicting more casualties than artillery, but that is of little comfort to the infantry: unlike a 152mm shell, a quadcopter loaded with plastic explosive can chase your car or fly right through the door of your dugout. 'Ukraine is an example, but it's not a template' That is one reason why this month Russia is projected to suffer its millionth casualty, including dead and wounded. No one is suggesting the British Army should fight with Russian-style tactics. But can a force of 73,000 regulars and 27,000 reservists really sustain modern levels of attrition? 'The Army's lethality is what matters. It's the effectiveness of our forces that actually matter, at the end of the day. And Ukraine is an example, but it's not a template. 'People say that generals, and even strategists are busy fighting the last war, and in some ways, Ukraine is the last war. The next war will be a very different war in many ways with very different sets of circumstances that we have to deal with,' says Robertson. Yet it is difficult to shake the feeling that although Robertson, Hill and Barrons did the best they could within the financial parameters they were set, they would have liked to do more. Would he have liked more money to work with? And does he believe Labour will deliver? Everything in the review has been 'ruthlessly' costed, he says, and the Prime Minister has explicitly promised its recommendations are going to be implemented. 'So the three of us are going to be right there, you know, sitting there like crows on the branch of a tree, watching carefully as to how the recommendations are implemented and how, and, and when and when they are,' he says 'So Labour has created a bit of a rod for their own back by having independent reviewers, but at the same time, it should galvanise them.' The question of raising the budget, he says, is a question for voters. 'What we can say is what we think is necessary, in terms of reference [we were given]. If the British people as a whole decide they want to spend more money on defence and less money on other things, then they will make that decision,' he says. 'At the moment they don't. We had a general election campaign last year where defence wasn't really mentioned at all. We had a Conservative party leadership campaign where defence wasn't mentioned as an issue. So people in the country have to see the threats that exist at the moment and the threats that will be there in the future and make a decision about what they have.' Britons will have to make sacrifices It's a fair point. For all the grumbling about Keir Starmer's timidness, the truth is his government – and British taxpayers – face three equally unpalatable options. They could borrow, while national debt is already at 95 per cent of GDP and growth anaemic; raise taxes, when the tax burden is already on course to be the highest since the Second World War; or make cuts elsewhere, when public services are already struggling. Is the blunt message, then, that to be safe ordinary Britons will have to make sacrifices? 'I think so. Unless the economy improves and unless we get growth – and a lot of what we are doing is promoting growth, defence expenditure is a way of gaining growth – then that makes the pie bigger and the choice is less difficult to make. 'We don't live in a world where there is an infinite amount of money available. It's a question of priorities. And if in a national conversation, which the Prime Minister has promised he's going to lead, people come to the conclusion that they want to avoid the lights going out or the hospitals being shut or the airports being shuttered and the data cables being broken, then the insurance premium that keeps your family safe has got be afforded.' As Robertson leaves The Telegraph, I remark that there is something about our conversation that leaves me uneasy. Here we are, a journalist in his 40s and a peer of the realm in his 70s – blithely discussing a war that neither of us will probably have to fight in. Does he find it morally awkward, talking about sacrifices today's teenagers and twenty-somethings will be asked to make? 'It is, and that's why I'm so obsessive about deterrence,' he says. 'The idea is to do this now so we don't have to fight.' He returns to the nuclear question, and three decades of interactions with top Russian officials. 'I've been in the Kremlin. And I am convinced that even if we did everything you've suggested – double the size of the army, and so on – the one thing that will really get their attention is the independent nuclear deterrent.' 'You know, there are people who will still argue that if Ukraine had not given up its nuclear weapons in 1994, in return for the paper assurances of the Budapest memorandum, that Russia would never have dared to have crossed the border. I don't know if you can prove that or disprove that. 'All I know is that Nato and the Article 5 guarantee is a deterrent to any aggressor who thinks that they can take on these 32 countries. So all of the missiles, all of the submarines, all of the planes that we are proposing are part of the build-up to war readiness are designed not to be used. 'They're designed to make sure that nobody fires that cruise missile.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Reeves to give prosecutors extra £250m to tackle courts backlog
More prosecutors are to be recruited, as part of a £250 million courts cash injection to be announced by Rachel Reeves. The funding will tackle record legal backlogs which are forcing thousands of victims to wait more than two years for justice. Secured by Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, the money is a 10 per cent uplift for the period 2026-29. It will enable the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to recruit and retain hundreds of prosecutors to tackle the backlog of cases, which stood at a record 74,651 at the end of 2024. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is expected to emerge as one of the biggest winners in the spending review on Wednesday. The Chancellor will also confirm an extra £700 million to recruit more probation officers as part of an expansion of community punishments to ease prison overcrowding. Ms Mahmood has further secured a £4.7 billion capital investment to build new prisons to help meet the Government's target of 14,000 extra jail places by 2031. Three sites – HMPs Garth, Grendon and Gartree – have already been commissioned. The funding increase is a recognition of the political damage the Government could suffer if it fails to solve the prison overcrowding crisis and reduce court delays. Last year's early release of thousands of prisoners, including some who were filmed toasting Sir Keir Starmer, has been a major factor in undermining public confidence in Labour, according to opinion polls. A Treasury source said the cash injection would 'speed up justice for victims and witnesses waiting months or years for cases to come to trial, after the Government inherited a justice system on the brink of collapse and courts in crisis'. The source added: 'To battle the backlog, this new funding by 2028/29 will mean the CPS can recruit more Crown Advocates and front-line staff to prosecute cases and better support victims.' The MoJ is soon expected to announce the biggest shake-up in a generation of the court system, with thousands of suspects to be stripped of the right to a jury trial. The plans, to be outlined by Sir Brian Leveson, one of Britain's most senior judges, are expected to limit the number of such cases to help clear the backlog. Proposals being considered include the creation of an intermediate court comprising a judge and two magistrates to hear cases that would previously have gone to a lengthy crown court trial before a jury. It is understood Sir Brian has also been looking at the possibility of increasing magistrates' sentencing powers so that they would be able to rule on cases related to offences that carry prison sentences of up to two years. They can currently only imprison convicted offenders for up to a year. Any removal of jury trials is expected to prompt a fierce backlash from many within the legal profession. However, Ms Mahmood has already warned that without such action the court backlog could increase to an unprecedented 100,000 cases. The courts review, commissioned by Ms Mahmood, follows a sentencing review by David Gauke, the former Tory justice secretary, which recommended criminals should be freed as little as a third of the way into their sentences if they behave well and engage with rehabilitation schemes. The proposals, which have been accepted by the MoJ, will also allow killers, rapists and other violent offenders to be freed halfway through their terms rather than two-thirds, if they behave well and engage in training, education and work while behind bars. A Treasury source said: 'The criminal justice system was broken after 14 years of neglect. We need to rebuild not just the system itself, but confidence in it too. You can't make our streets safer if you don't have the resource to put dangerous suspects on trial. 'That's why the Chancellor is going to throw her backing behind battling the backlog in our courts, hiring more prosecutors and giving them the tools to deliver justice for victims as part of our Plan for Change.'
