UK: AUKUS, Spending review, Israel criticism, Gibraltar deal
UK correspondent Harriet Line joins Kathryn to discuss US rumblings over AUKUS, Chancellor Rachel Reeve's spending plans - with major cash injections for the NHS and defence.
Britain has, along with New Zealand, been criticised by the US for sanctioning two Israeli ministers over alleged 'egregious abuses' of human rights in Gaza.
And the UK has reached a long-awaited deal with the EU over Gibraltar's border with Spain.
Harriet Line is Deputy Political Editor of the Daily Mail.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
15 hours ago
- Scoop
AUKUS: A Very Antipodean Stupidity
Call it abandonment, anxiety, or just latent stupidity. The messy goo of feelings and fuzzy notions behind Australia's most injudicious strategic decision is yielding its nasty harvest. Conceived by paranoid armchair strategists, flabby think tankers and profligate spenders happy to expend other people's money, the tripartite agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States is rapidly unravelling. Even during the Biden administration, under whose bumbling watch this agreement was hatched, there were doubts. The ogrish price tag (US$239 billion or A$368 billion) that would be billed to the Australian taxpayer; the absurd time schedules (delivery of nuclear-powered submarines by the 2030s and 2040s); the contingencies and qualifications (Congressional concerns about transferring Virginia Class (SSN-774) submarines to the Royal Australian Navy), all pointed to the fact that Canberra had fallen for a lemon, childishly refusing to taste its stinging bitterness. The central point of the tediously named Pillar One of the AUKUS agreement (there is no pillar, one or otherwise), which involves the transfer of US Virginia class boats to the RAN – was always its viability. While President Joe Biden was gradually losing his faculties in the White House, the Congressional Research Service was pertinently noting the obstacles that would face any transfer. The CRS report released on May 22, 2023 was the sort of thing that should have alarmed Australian defence planners, instead of turning them into paid up ostriches dreaming of consultancies. For one thing, it made it clear that Congress was always going to be the one to convince in the matter. 'One issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify DOD's AUKUS-related legislative package for the FY2024 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] sent to Congress on May 2, 2023'. That package included the authorisation for the transfer of 'up to two Virginia-class SSNs to the government of Australia in the form of sale, with the costs of the transfer to be covered by the government of Australia.' There were also weighty doubts about the 'net impact on collective allied deterrence and warfighting capabilities of transferring three to five Virginia-class boats to Australia while pursuing the construction of three to five replacement SSNs for the US Navy'. This is a point that has never gone away. To give, even to an ally, and a perceived advantage yet diminish, however small and fictional, the supposed power of the US submarine fleet, is never going to take place if the annual production of 1.2 Virginia boats remains as it is. Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker was always of the view that 'the AUKUS plan would transfer US Virginia-class submarines to a partner nation even before we have met our own Navy's requirements.' The fact that the Trump administration is now conducting a review of AUKUS can be seen as a mere formality – for those who think formalities smooth matters. The Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles certainly hopes so, calling it 'a completely natural step for an incoming government to take.' That Yankee stronghold of renown in Canberra, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, apes the line with simian consistency: 'It's normal, after a change of government, for a new administration to review existing commitments in the light of new policy priorities: in this case, 'America First'.' But nothing about the Trump government is a formality, or any review's outcome a foregone conclusion. The presence of Undersecretary of Defense Policy Eldridge Colby should be disconcerting to the AUKUS band leaders and comparisons to Britain's own review of the pact by Sir Stephen Lovegrove should be seen as fantastically distant. 'AUKUS,' in Colby's assessment, 'is only going to lead to more submarines collectively in 10, 15, 20 years, which is way beyond the window of maximum danger, which is really this decade.' Putting to one side the warmongering stirring in the latter part of the statement, Colby is certainly not wrong about the time that will elapse before any delivery takes place. Down under, the strategists are scurrying and fretting, a sight that is proving enormously entertaining. But the political classes have only themselves to blame for this pigsty of a conundrum. As former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull notes with snappy precision, the AUKUS agreement is perfectly positioned for the US to not follow through. It can still stick to the letter of the agreement without having to ever transfer a single submarine to Australia, all the time raking in Australian largesse. 'This is because it has always been part of the deal, and part of the US legislation, that the transfer of submarines to Australia is highly conditional.' The legislation in question notes that the President will submit to the relevant congressional committees and leadership a certification no later than 270 days prior to the transfer of vessels that the move 'will not degrade the United States underseas capabilities'; is consistent with the country's foreign policy and national security interests and furthers the AUKUS partnership. That furtherance, however, involves the US ensuring 'sufficient submarine production and maintenance investments' that will meet undersea capabilities; Australia supplying 'appropriate funds and support for the additional capacity required to meet the requirements' under the provisions; and Canberra's 'capability to host and fully operate the vessels authorized to be transferred.' The latest development in this overpriced show shows it up as a series of fictions: for Australia, the boyish hankering for nuclear powered submarines in the first place; for the United States, the fact that it needs more nuclear armed boats in order to look more ridiculous in having an arsenal it can never use. It was the military industrial complex in full song, nourished by expensive games, dubious scenarios and drab excuses for war. With Donald Trump in the White House, the Make America Great Again philosophy mushes the terminology of sweet friends and mortal foes, turning it into the mortar of self-interest. Washington's interests come first, and Australia's own idiotically misplaced interests are barely visible in the White House situation room. Then again, never ask Australian strategic thinkers about their interests, ever the hostage of governing fears and treasured prejudices.
Kiwiblog
16 hours ago
- Kiwiblog
AUKUS is probably dead
A recent release: Prominent New Zealand leaders Helen Clark, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Sir David Carter, Dr Don Brash, Mr Carl Worker, and Mr David Mahon have placed a full-page open letter in Stuff and NZME newspapers expressing grave concern about New Zealand's foreign policy open letter, co-signed by the group of influential New Zealand figures, cautions Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, and his Government, against taking an adversarial stance against China as part of an alignment with the United States.'While good relations with the United States must be maintained, we see considerable disadvantage to New Zealand in becoming part of defence arrangements, including the associated prospective AUKUS Pillar Two, which are explicitly aimed at China,' said former Prime Minister Helen Clark.' For many years, New Zealand has maintained a balanced foreign policy, building strong relationships with both the United States and China. That has served our national interests well. Recent moves by the Government, however, suggest an increasing willingness to align New Zealand with the United States in a way that could harm our relationship with China.' First of all AUKUS is probably dead as far as NZ is concerned. Trump doesn't see allies, just cost centres. He will not see any benefit in the US sharing military technology with New Zealand. Hell, he may even renege on the deal with Australia. The chance of NZ being invited in, is minuscule now I would say. The characterisation of recent foreign policy changes as being aligning with the US against China is misleading, in my opinion. First of all the changes started under the Ardern Government (which they deserve credit for). They started because Russia launched a war of aggression against Ukraine, and China has been a cheerleader for them. The decade long project of believing trading with authoritarian states would make them more benign has (sadly) failed. China has itself become much more aggressive. The change in NZ's stance has zero to do with the US. It is to do with how Russia and China have behaved. In fact the US is itself becoming very unreliable, and hence NZ's future is probably not with AUKUS, but a looser collection of alliances with Australia, UK, the EU, Canada, Japan, South Korea etc. The letter specifically addresses recent actions, including the authorisation of New Zealand naval vessels through the Taiwan Strait, the strengthening of defence ties with the Philippines amid tensions in the South China Sea, and visits to Taiwan led by Government parliamentarians. Why would we not have MPs visit Taiwan, and not have better defence ties with the Philippines? We're not a vassal state of China.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Defence's Waiouru Housing Project Fails To Break Ground After Deal With Ngāti Rangi Falls Over, Sources Say
Article – RNZ , Reporter The Defence Force's flagship project to fix up poor housing that is bad for soldiers' health has failed to break ground two years after it was funded, according to sources in Waiouru. None of the 50 houses promised for Waiouru have been started, according to feedback from the town, which the NZDF has not disputed. Budget 2023 earmarked the thick end of $75 million for the new houses. A Defence tender to find a builder went out a year ago. But on Wednesday the government said, 'Discussions regarding Waiouru are ongoing and progressing well, as part of a wider Treaty Settlement.' Asked what the talks were about, Associate Defence Minister Chris Penk's office said, 'We don't have anything further to add outside of our existing statements currently.' NZDF did not address what the new discussions were about either. It did not respond when asked what had happened to the project and any contract. RNZ understands its deal with Ngāti Rangi that underpinned the housing project fell over at the last minute. Ngāti Rangi is hosting the National Hautapu Ceremony for Matariki next week at Tirorangi Marae. The iwi referred RNZ's questions to the NZDF. A spokesperson for Associate Defence Minister Chris Penk, in a statement sent after the publication of this article, said the Government did not accept the suggestion any deal had fallen over. It said in 2021 that, 'Housing is on the top of our priority list. As part of our settlement we have an arrangement with the New Zealand Defence Force out at Waiouru to build 50 homes. That project we're still working on with NZDF.' Penk told Cabinet colleagues last year that NZDF's widespread 'dilapidated' housing was harming military output. Defence has vacancy rates of about 30 percent and 'ten percent of personnel leave the NZDF predominantly due to the unsatisfactory working, training and living environments', he said. Budget 2025 signalled the start of $9 billion in promised new defence spending by 2029, containing about $3 billion for 15 projects, mostly to do with weapons or IT systems. However, the Budget provided just a fraction over the next four years to address the billion-dollar backlog in maintenance and renewals that is outstanding; past Cabinet papers gave this figure, and NZDF confirmed on Tuesday that its spending on defence regeneration was half a billion dollars behind what the 2019 plan demanded. In August 2024, Penk expressed shock after seeing photos of black mould in Waiouru families' homes. 'No family should have to live like that, let alone the families of those who sacrifice so much to serve their country,' he said. The temperature low in Waiouru over the last 30 days has been under one degree on 17 days. Some housing 'poses potential health risks and can cause housing-related stress to … personnel and their families', and was linked to health conditions like asthma, a Cabinet minute in 2023 said. The 50-house project was announced as settled a year ago, under the Te Tiriti settlement with Ngāti Rangi seven years ago. Ruapehu district mayor Weston Kirton and his council celebrated the deal 11 months ago. 'I don't have any detail, only to say that it seems to be stalled in some shape or form,' Kirton told RNZ on Wednesday. No building appeared to have taken place – a playground and community park were in the tender, too – and the council was not privy to why, or to Defence talks with iwi. 'The minister should give us an update on what progress there is on the Defence presence in the Waiouru community,' Kirton said. NZDF had earlier threatened to shut up shop entirely at the central North Island settlement and head south, so he had been delighted when the settlement secured the army's training area and the housing deal began to firm up. 'It was all go,' Kirton told RNZ. 'They were very excited, they wanted to retain the training area at Waiouru. 'We were excited, the fact that they were going to put resouces back into Waiouru.' On Wednesday, Penk initially made no comment at all about Waiouru, then, when prompted again by RNZ, provided a single line about the 'discussions'. Shortly before that, in a longer statement, he had said, 'The government is improving accommodation for our sailors, soldiers and aviators by addressing decades of underinvestment, which has left Defence housing stock in poor condition.' Penk referred in that statement to projects in Devonport, Trentham and Manawatū, but not Waiouru, even though Waiouru had the lion's share of Budget 2023's tranche one funding for housing upgrades. 'The Waiouru New Build Housing is one of the first projects implemented under the Homes for Families Programme,' said its tender. Two months ago on Facebook, Penk posted – next to a headline '$12 billion for a stronger NZ' cheering the defence capability plan released in April – that: 'This Government is rebuilding the Defence Force after decades of underfunding.' 'Defence housing, messing and dining spaces are going to benefit from fresh investment. 'Our military personnel deserve healthy and modern spaces to live and rest in while they serve our country.' The 50-house Waiouru deal was designed to signal the starter's gun on a half-billion-dollar upgrade of the army camp over the next 25 years, and of an overall $3 billion overhaul of 1600 defence houses countrywide. Most of those required 'upgrading urgently', past Cabinet papers said. Penk a year ago told a Cabinet committee the estate was a 'critical enabler of military effect; providing the working, training and living environments required for generating and maintaining defence outputs'. 'The dilapidated condition of the NZDF estate is evident everywhere, but mainly in the living and training environments, and with utilities such as power, water supply and sanitation.' A 2024 estimate put deferred maintenance at $480m across the estate, which includes not just houses but other facilities. Some 'critical' defence assets were so poor in some places that a 'wholesale shutdown of operations at that location may be needed', Penk stated. The NZDF's annual report a year earlier had said 99 percent of its houses met Healthy Homes standards. Asked how that was possible given what Cabinet had been told, NZDF told RNZ: 'Healthy Homes compliance does not address the state of NZDF's barracks or working accommodation and does not necessarily address whether a home is aged, fit for purpose and or in an accelerated state of deterioration.' Penk had said in August 2024 that funding was constrained but the government was looking at options for improving the housing. Earlier, Budget 2024 funded 35 leased homes at Devonport Naval Base. New initiatives in Budget 2025 funded just $4m of capital and $16m for housing over four years. More would be added 'once the business case is approved by Cabinet', NZDF said. The business case related to a revision of its 2019 estate regeneration plan to fit a 2024-2040 timeline. This had to be revised, in part, to 'address consequences of insufficient funding since the 2019 business case', official papers said. 'The business case is still being drafted and Cabinet's decision on it will be released when that occurs in the next couple of months,' it told RNZ. NZDF mentioned about $30m for upgrades at Devonport Naval base, but this does not appear to be for housing. Budget 2025 also had $120m for depreciated funding of estate assets. It put $26m into deferred maintenance this year, and $104m over four years, against the $480m backlog. Penk said in his statement that three construction contracts and a future lease agreement had been signed for 61 new homes with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei on Auckland's North Shore, and to lease additional houses in Sunnybrae. A new tender signalled 'more housing solutions will be sought this year, including at Trentham and in the Manawatū', he said. Budgets 2023 and 2024 provided $75.4m capital and a total $17.1m over four years, Defence said. This included a renovation pilot for 13 properties at Burnham, Linton and Ohakea.
