The Defence Review was anything but strategic
It is hard to imagine a major policy looking more outdated within hours of being announced than the Labour Government's Strategic Defence Review (SDR). On Monday, Sir Keir Starmer made a series of grandiose promises about great improvements to Britain's Armed Forces and other security requirements, yet failed to commit the money to pay for them.
The Government has raided the overseas aid budget to boost spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP but the Prime Minister declined to set a firm date for when the budgets would rise to 3 per cent. This would happen sometime in the next parliament if circumstances allowed.
However, Nato is poised to introduce a new target for allies to spend 3.5 per cent on hard defence and 1.5 per cent on cyber, intelligence and military-related infrastructure, a total of 5 per cent – something not seen in Britain since the Cold War. Doubtless many will refuse to sign up, just as they have all failed to meet the bloc's previous target of 2 per cent.
For the UK, the uplift would amount to an extra £30 billion in real terms on top of the spending already planned. Military chiefs have said the Government's promise of new submarines, more ordnance and munitions, an enhanced cyber warfare programme and an improved nuclear deterrent cannot be met on current financial projections.
But having claimed to be leading Europe on defence, Sir Keir has no option but to agree at the Nato summit in The Hague later this month, the first to be attended by Donald Trump since his re-election. Indeed, it is the US president's refusal to countenance America's historically high level of support for Europe's defences that has led Nato to seek a far greater contribution from continental countries.
The Treasury is completing a spending review which could make big savings in welfare and social programmes but only at the risk of triggering a backlash from Labour MPs. The Government is effectively stymied by its own overblown rhetoric and election manifesto promises.
Sir Keir dismissed calls to set specific spending targets as 'performative fantasy politics'. But if the deployments needed for the next two or three decades are to be met then commitments have to be made now. Labour's defence review failed to address what is a generational challenge. To call it 'strategic' was a total misnomer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wales Online
23 minutes ago
- Wales Online
all you need to know and what it means for Brits
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Donald Trump has implemented one of the most extensive travel bans in history. The US President has announced new travel restrictions on 19 countries, which is approximately a tenth of all nations globally. From June 9, nationals from Afghanistan, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen will be prohibited from entering the United States under the new regulations. Citizens from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela will encounter partial restrictions, losing access to all immigrant visas and several non-immigrant travel options, with only a select few on special visas, such as diplomats, permitted entry into the US from these nations. Trump has cited various reasons for imposing these bans, including insufficient traveller screening, "a significant terrorist presence" within these countries, governments that are hesitant to repatriate deported nationals, or citizens who frequently overstay their visas in the US, reports the Mirror. The bans are the latest in a series of anti-immigration moves introduced by Trump, which also include a block on people coming over the southern border to claim asylum and instructing heavily armed ICE immigration officers to make raids across the country. (Image: Getty) Why is the ban happening now? The announcement was made in the days after an Egyptian man in Colorado was arrested and charged with carrying out an attack on a group honouring hostages held in Gaza. The US President directly linked the travel bans to the "recent terror attack", claiming that it "underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted". Trump added: "We don't want them." In reality, the incident provides a convenient political reason to resurrect and expand policies that featured in Trump's first presidency, and comes after several months of build-up. In his first term, Trump was explicit about his desire to ban citizens from countries where Islam is the primary religion. At that time, he ordered a travel ban against people from seven Muslim-majority countries from coming to the US. This set of restrictions has clear echoes of the first. Made louder on Wednesday evening when Trump alluded to migration from Middle Eastern countries to Europe. "We will not let what happened in Europe happen to America," he said. Are there exemptions? Yes. If you are a national from one of the 19 "banned" countries, but have an existing visa to the US, you will be exempt from the ban, the New York Times reports. Green card holders, athletes travelling to the US for the coming World Cup and Olympics, and Afghans eligible for the Special Immigrant Visa program that was introduced following the US's invasion of the country, are also exempt. Those from the "banned" countries seeking visas through connections to US family members can continue to do so. That means those who have trips planned to the US, but already have their paperwork in order, will be able to travel. Whether they want to is a different question. There have been many reports of tourists to the US facing lengthy scrutiny at the US border since Trump's second term began, having their phones combed through and even being placed in detention for days at a time. The cooling effect is already being felt. The United States is on track to lose $12.5bn (£9.4bn) in international travel spending this year, according to a study published on Tuesday by the World Travel and Tourism Council. What if I'm a dual citizen? This is a situation a lot of Brits may find themselves in. If, for example, if you've got dual Somalian and British citizenship, you are exempt from the order. The same goes for all of the 19 countries included on the list. What if I've been to one of the banned countries? This is a little complicated, and the full answer is not yet clear. As things are now, UK passport holders can apply for an Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA), instead of getting a full visa. If, however, you're British but were in the following countries on or after March 2011, then you can't get an ESTA. The countries include: Iraq Libya North Korea Somalia Sudan Syria Yemen You cannot apply for an ESTA visa waiver if you travelled to or were in Cuba on or after 12 January 2021. However, if you fall into that camp, you can still apply for a visa. That is a lengthier process and the chances of getting rejected are higher. Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox Find out what's happening near you
Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
Supreme Court spares US gun companies from Mexico's lawsuit
WASHINGTON, June 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson (SWBI.O), opens new tab and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales, harming its government. The companies had argued for the dismissal of Mexico's suit, filed in Boston in 2021, under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these protections. "Mexico alleges that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court. The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the border. Mexico's lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in Mexico. The suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful products. To avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. Mexico in the lawsuit sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico." Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the lawsuit. Mexico, a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million annually. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on March 4.
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in religious-rights case over unemployment taxes
The Supreme Court decided Thursday that a Catholic charity doesn't have to pay Wisconsin unemployment taxes, one of a set of religious-rights cases the justices are considering this term. The ruling comes in a case filed by the Catholic Charities Bureau, which says the state violated the First Amendment's religious freedom guarantee when it required the organization to pay the tax while exempting other faith groups. Wisconsin argues the organization has paid the tax for over 50 years and doesn't qualify for an exemption because its day-to-day work doesn't involve religious teachings. Much of the groups' funding is from public money, and neither employees nor people receiving services have to belong to any faith, according to court papers. Catholic Charities, though, says it qualifies because its disability services are motivated by religious beliefs and the state shouldn't be making determinations about what work qualifies as religious. It appealed to the Supreme Court after Wisconsin's highest court ruled against it. President Donald Trump 's administration weighed in on behalf of Catholic Charites. Wisconsin has said that a decision in favor of the charity could open the door to big employers like religiously affiliated hospitals pulling out of the state unemployment system as well.
