Reeves pours cold water on Nato demands for more defence spending making clear it WON'T go over 2.5% of GDP before 2029 and hinting 3% will be the limit in the next Parliament
played down the prospects of ramping up defence spending today despite mounting pressure from Donald Trump.
The Chancellor stressed that Labour had only committed to hitting 2.5 per cent of GDP in the current Parliament.
And she suggested the 'ambition' after 2029 remains to reach a level of 3 per cent - even though Nato states are being asked to agree a target of 3.5 per cent at a summit later this month.
The blueprint being pushed by Mr Trump and the military alliance's secretary general Mark Rutte would see countries pledge to hit the higher spending by the early 2030s.
A further 1.5 per cent of GDP would be required for 'defence-related expenditure'. A timetable could be set for gradually increasing their allocations.
However, there are questions about how the UK would fund such an huge increase - roughly equivalent to an extra £30billion annually.
Britain allocated 2.33 per cent of GDP to defence last year, and is set to reach 2.5 per cent by April 2027.
The Labour Government has an 'ambition' of increasing that to 3 per cent in the next parliament - likely to run to 2034.
In a round of broadcast interviews this morning, Ms Reeves said the Spending Review she laid out yesterday included the 'biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War'.
'The commitment on defence in our manifesto was 2.5 per cent… we've said 3 per cent in the next Parliament,' she told Sky News.
The Chancellor said the spending plans only covered this 'this Parliament'.
She said: 'We will set out costed and funded plans in due course, but in this Parliament the commitment was to get to 2.5 per cent.. '
The generous fiscal envelope set by the Chancellor last Autumn has been put under massive pressure by the economy slowing down and Mr Trump 's trade war.
That has led analysts and political rivals to argue that more tax increases are 'inevitable' - although the funding gap will not crystalise until the next fiscal package.
The US itself missed the proposed Nato target by spending 3.38 per cent of GDP on defence last year - although the sheer size of its economy meant that dwarfed contributions from the rest of the alliance.
Countries such as Germany face finding upwards of $60billion a year more for the military.
The increase in Italy would be equivalent to around $46billion, Canada $45billion, France £44billion and the UK roughly $40billion.
Spain - which has not invested heavily in defence up to now - could need to allocate an additional $36billion despite its economy being much smaller.
The UK's Strategic Defence Review, published last week, recommended sweeping changes, including a greater focus on new technology, including drones and artificial intelligence based on rising budgets.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
19 minutes ago
- Reuters
Airline stocks tumble after Israel strikes on Iran
LONDON, June 13 (Reuters) - European airline stocks tumbled in early trading on Friday after Israel launched widescale strikes against Iran, which pushed the oil price up by 7% and ignited a rush out of risk assets. Shares in Lufthansa ( opens new tab dropped almost 5% on the Tradegate platform, while those in Air France-KLM ( opens new tab and EasyJet (EZJ.L), opens new tab fell 3-4%. Airlines cleared out of the airspace over Israel, Iran and Iraq and Jordan on Friday after Israel launched attacks on targets in Iran, Flightradar24 data showed, with carriers scrambling to divert and cancel flights to keep passengers and crew safe.
Reuters
19 minutes ago
- Reuters
European share futures plunge after Israel strikes Iran
LONDON, June 13 (Reuters) - European shares were set to open sharply lower on Friday after Israel launched widescale strikes against Iran, which pushed the oil price up by 7% and drove a rush out of risk assets. Euro STOXX 50 futures, which track blue-chip euro zone stocks, dropped 1.4%, <with contracts on the German and French benchmarks each down over 1%. , Futures on Britain's oil- heavy FTSE (.FTSE), opens new tab fell 0.4%.
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why obsessing over ‘identity' is a stupid idea
Earlier this year, delivering the annual Richard Dimbleby Lecture, Gareth Southgate argued that in Britain today, too many boys and young men are suffering an identity crisis. They need better role models: only through emulating such figures can they reverse their own slump into academic underachievement, Andrew Tate-fuelled misogyny and feelings of worthlessness. The speech was widely praised. It seemed, if you'll forgive the pun, that the former England manager was shooting at an open goal. Few disputed that the fundamental problem was our boys' sense of identity, or that this sense needed to be made stronger and more resilient. Or maybe not. In this incendiary and timely broadside, Australian philosopher Alexander Douglas argues that the entire concept of 'identity', as we find it in contemporary discourse, is wrong. There's something undeniably odd about looking to others to find one's true self. Personal authenticity surely can't be a matter of imitation – and yet, for good or ill, we do it all the time. As children, we play at being superheroes, monsters, parents, criminals, police: we try to find out who we are by playing at being what we are not. As adults, Alexander suggests, we continue this role-play, but with a twist: we're motivated by fear to hunker down in silos of identity definition. Hence, perhaps, the rise of identity politics, as manifested on all sides: Black Lives Matter, the English Defence League, #MeToo, Proud Boys, self-regarding wellness crypto-fascists, the LGBTQ+ community. It seems unlikely that Nicola Sturgeon, Nigel Farage or Donald Trump would have been elected were it not for the respectively Scottish, English and American national identities to which their supporters cleave. Identity politics has for some time been excoriated by conservatives, but increasingly it is attacked by the Left too. Ash Sarkar, a regular panellist on Radio 4's The Moral Maze, who has described herself as 'literally a communist', proposed in her recent book Minority Rule that the Left's cause is being thwarted because the oppressed they hope to defend are being splintered into different interest groups riven by identity politics. If only black people, queer people, trans people and the white working-classes could see past their identitarian distinctions, and think along class lines, the revolution might have some actual prospects. It's easy to understand, Douglas writes, why we shore up our identities like latter-day Canutes. 'Drowning in a world where nothing is certain, where half of what we know is probably mistaken and the other half will soon be out of date, fear drives us to cling to the driftwood of various definitions.' Tech companies monetise exactly this insecurity and desire for stability. We're encouraged to present our 'authentic selves' online, the better for Meta and other firms to exploit our private data for profit – though the more heavily redacted, cunningly filtered and therefore inauthentic, the more engagement-worthy those selves will be. The central point of Against Identity is that these identities are not just generated by fear and algorithms but are fundamentally mendacious. As the late Christian philosopher René Girard put it: 'Individualism is a formidable lie.' That's a discombobulating axiom for the 21st century, in which individualism has become a religion for a society that's lost faith in God. Girard grew up in post-war France, when existentialism was becoming an exportable commodity, like fine wines or Brigitte Bardot, spreading its influence from Saint-Germain-des-Prés cafés to the world. The leader of the turtlenecks, Jean-Paul Sartre, argued that we have the God-like power to become our true selves ex nihilo – a tremendously hopefully message for those of us who are struggling to escape the inherited curses of family, class, sex, or (in my case) a Black Country accent. Soon, ironically enough, everybody sought to become an individual. Girard denounced the hipster narcissists whose way of becoming themselves was, ironically, to look like what he called 'a vast herd of sheep-like individualists'. Girard called this desire to establish one's authentic identity a 'romantic lie', and it's a lie that persists today, not least in Silicon Valley. Douglas points, for instance, to Steve Jobs's much-mythologised 2005 commencement address at Stanford University, where the Apple founder hymned 'your own inner voice, heart and intuition', which 'will somehow know already what you want to truly become.' How did we get this way? One account of human evolution, as related by Douglas, goes like this. For much of human history, there was no organised legal force to restrain the lawless thugs who sought to harm others. Coalitions of the willing thus formed to eliminate them and safeguard society. This is what the primatologist Richard Wangham calls the 'execution hypothesis': to put it roughly, the more aggressive members of society were bumped off or, presumably through some form of community-wide castration, prevented from reproducing. Douglas contends that this domesticated human society, which has continued to the present day, produced a civilisation that wasn't violent in a reactive way, as with the elimination of those thugs, but a proactive one: it enforces conformity to norms. Humans became selected, in the evolutionary sense, for their extreme vigilance in conforming to social norms, whether out of fear of punishment or, worse, being made to look ridiculous. 'People fear breaking the social contract,' Douglas writes, 'for the same reason they fear turning up to a gala event in unfashionable shoes finding themselves in a conversation where everybody but them seems to have mastered the appropriate slang or academic jargon.' (He is a lecturer in philosophy at the University of St Andrews: one wonders if he's speaking from experience.) One's identity, that is to say, is constrained and defined by the norms of our society. We are not meaningfully free to choose who we are. Douglas goes on: 'Many of our communities, whatever the stated purpose might be, are really identity regimes driven by egotism – patrolled and sustained by individuals determined to preserve a certain idea of themselves: a fragile idea that cannot bear much novelty.' This rings true to me. But the alternative Douglas proposes is, to put it mildly, bracing. He counsels something called 'identitylessness', which – following the philosophies of Girard, Spinoza and the ancient Chinese sage Zhuangzhi – involves breaking out of the prison of individual identity and realising that we're all, in a profound sense, connected to everything. 'We are the others and the others are us,' he writes at his most rhapsodic, 'not because we share an identity, but because we are alike in identitylessness… I believe we have barely begun to live in the world together. Our drive for identity is always getting in the way.' Alexander is alert to the complaint that this anti-identity vision might be deranging, that 'a world without identity is terrifying'. Not just terrifying, I would argue, but scarcely comprehensible. Yet he believes in it. At one point, he movingly recounts how he struggled to deal with his father's Alzheimer's disease. His dad's identity was being brutally stripped to nothing. A friend advised that Douglas should stop yearning for his dad to become his old self: give up the hope of trying to bring the father back to this world, and instead enter his. 'That turned out to be the secret,' he writes. 'My father was not vanishing but changing.' Douglas set about 'letting go of the things I was exhausting myself trying to hold on to, the things by which I had defined both him and myself, and learning to find joy in what was there'. The experience allowed him to fully understand the anti-identity philosophers he celebrates here. 'Nothing can remain the same. Trying to hold on to the way things are is a losing game. But love remains, because love can flow along with the way things change… Love is as supple as the world, and the world's transformations cannot erase it. Love is the opposite of identity and the secret to adaptation.' Ultimately, I'm not sure Douglas is right about love. Can we really love what has no personality or identity? Nor, closing Against Identity, was I convinced that we could really live identityless in a mystical communion with the rest of the universe. But the challenge he makes along the way to what many of us have become – narcissists onanistically buffing our fatuous identities, both online and in real life – seems to me more valuable and important than most contemporary philosophy.
