Prince of Wales to travel to Estonia in support of British troops
The Prince of Wales will travel to Estonia in support of British troops stationed at the frontline of Nato's defence against Russia.
The Prince will visit the Mercian Regiment in his role as their Colonel-in-Chief, joining them for training under Operation Cabrit, the UK's contribution to Nato's Forward Land Forces along the border.
He will meet with Alar Karis, the president of Estonia, who recently called on European countries to increase their defence spending and spoke to Sir Keir Starmer in the wake of Donald Trump and Volodymr Zelenky's public fallout in the Oval Office.
The Prince's trip, in which he will join soldiers for a field training exercise, is designed to show support for the British Armed Forces and their contribution to Nato's defence of its Eastern flank, and is his first visit to Estonia.
While there, he will also visit a school for displaced Ukrainian teachers and children, where he will take part in sports and a Ukrainian language lesson, and a renewable energy start-up in line with his interest in the environment.
He will also meet Estonian soldiers and engage in a handover ceremony between The Royal Dragoon Guards and the Mercian Regiment.
The Prince will visit the Armed Forces welfare team and the canteen at Tapa camp, and watch as new weapons systems and tactics are deployed on the ground. It was planned about six months ago, before the recent escalation in tensions between the Ukraine and its allies.
The trip, said a palace source, will demonstrate the 'close relationship between the crown and armed forces' which is 'extremely close to the Prince's heart and extremely important in his role'.
It will give the Prince the opportunity to build a new relationship with the Estonian leader and its people, furthering the 'deep, close ties' between nations.
The Royal family has recently been active in its support of the military, with the Duke of Edinburgh visiting The Royal Dragoon Guards in January to attend a cold weather training exercise in Harju County, and the Princess Royal meeting with The King's Royal Hussars in 2023.
In a statement, Kensington Palace said: 'The Prince of Wales will travel to Estonia from Thursday 20th March to Friday 21st March to visit the Mercian Regiment in his role as Colonel-in-Chief and learn about how they are bolstering Nato's eastern flank as part of Operation Cabrit.
'Whilst in Estonia, His Royal Highness will also carry out engagements in Tallinn to learn more about how the country has responded to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and how Estonia is innovating in renewable energy and technology.
'This will be the Prince's first ever visit to Estonia.'
There are currently 900 British personnel deployed in Estonia, training and working to 'deter aggression and uphold stability' in eastern Europe, according to the Ministry of Defence.
John Healey MP, the Defence Secretary, has previously said: 'Our presence here is a powerful message to our allies and adversaries: the UK stands ready to defend its allies and uphold our shared values, all year round.'
The Ministry of Defence describes the Mercian Regiment as being 'at the heart of the action, providing the fighting element of the British Army's forces'.
The late Queen visited Estonia in 2006, Prince Charles in 2001, and Prince Harry in 2014.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
This ruthless pursuit of disabled people has damaged Labour – no matter what happens next
One year ago, as cheering supporters waved union jacks to celebrate Labour's election landslide, Keir Starmer walked into Downing Street with a promise: the country had voted 'for change. For national renewal. And a return of politics to public service.' On Tuesday, his government will ask parliament to remove benefits from more than 1 million disabled and sick people. You will have already heard much about the Westminster drama of the vote. More than 120 Labour MPs have signed an amendment aiming to kill the bill next week, with more still said to be joining, presumably fuelled by the sense this was not the 'change' they were elected for. It has been a welcome relief to see such moral strength, with backbenchers and even a now former government whip dodging alleged threats of deselection to stand up for their constituents. Starmer says he will 'press forward' with the cuts, describing the rebels as 'noises off', but behind the scenes No 10 is said to be desperately trying to get MPs – including frontbenchers – back in line. In the coming days, the papers will inevitably splash on what the size of the rebellion means for Starmer's premiership while pundits gas about rumoured resignations, as though all of this were a game and the only casualty a promising ministerial career. Let's remember, then, what – and who – it is MPs would be voting for. With the number of people relying on disability benefits growing, the government plans to tighten eligibility for personal independence payments (Pip). That means up to 1.2 million disabled people, many of whom are already in some of the poorest households in the country, could lose between £4,200 and £6,300 a year they need to pay for the extra costs of disability. Under the changes, due to be introduced in November 2026, disabled people would not qualify for Pip unless they score a minimum of four points on an assessment designed to measure their ability to carry out a single daily activity, such as washing or getting dressed. If that sounds like technical jargon, just talk to Lee – a worried reader who emailed me – and the human impact of the policy becomes clear. Lee has multiple debilitating health conditions – from muscle wasting and joint pain to depression and daily seizures – and was reassessed for Pip in March. He scraped by to win the lowest benefit rate, but didn't score the magic four points in any category – which means that if MPs vote to change the rules, it is likely Lee will be rejected next time he's assessed. That's despite the fact he needs help from his partner to shower, cook and use the toilet. Lee is 'petrified' of losing his disability benefits and his seizures are increasing from the stress. 'I couldn't survive without the support I receive,' he says. 'It would be a death sentence for me.' No Labour minister will tell you they want to take Pip from people like Lee. No politician who cuts disability benefits ever says out loud, 'We will take support from people who rely on it.' Instead, they cast doubt on reality, chipping away at trust in the social security system and, with it, our disabled neighbours. They say we should give benefits to people who 'genuinely need them', as though not everyone receiving them does. They pick a 'good reason' for cutting support – a bloated welfare bill, say, or a labour market crisis – and paint empathy as costly and cruelty as prudent. That's why government figures – including Starmer himself in response to the rebellion – repeatedly claim the cuts will get disabled people into work, even though a Pip award has no relation to whether someone has a job or not. It is telling that the official forecast for the policy's impact on employment isn't due to be published until October – meaning that MPs are being asked to cut disabled people's benefits on the basis it will help them find work without any evidence to back this up. Or, as Labour MPs tabling the amendment put it: 'We are being asked to vote before consultation with disabled people and before impact assessments.' Facts, it seems, don't trump fiscal rules. Even if a few thousand long-term sick people get jobs as a result of the changes, it will pale in significance compared with the number pushed into penury: analysis by Trussell and WPI Economics shows nearly half a million people in disabled households will be forced into severe hardship if the government goes ahead with the full cuts. 'Tightening eligibility criteria' is a neat euphemism for withholding the money disabled people need to live. The Pip change is only the beginning. In the same bill, MPs are due to vote to cut the health top-up of universal credit for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 in order to, in the government's words, fix a system 'which encourages sickness' – as well as scrap it entirely for under-22s. That's still not all: when the work capabilities assessment is abolished, Pip will become the 'gateway' for this benefit, so swathes of people who lose Pip won't be eligible for out-of-work sickness benefits payments either. Like many, Lee receives both Pip and universal credit – which means Labour's 'reforms' could see his two main strands of support pulled away. On top of that, his partner could also have her carer's allowance taken, as that's linked to Pip eligibility too. Lee has already done the maths. If both his disability benefits are stopped, he will lose precisely £718.87 per month. That works out at roughly half his income. 'I've told the crisis team [these cuts] would be the end of me,' he admits. 'Why would anyone want to go on without any support or quality of life?' That's the thing with Westminster drama. Politics is only a game if you are privileged enough to be cushioned from its effects. For others, it is what decides whether there is enough food in the cupboard or whether a care worker arrives to help you wash your hair. In 2015, fresh from the coalition pact, the Liberal Democrats were punished by the electorate for helping the Conservatives push through sweeping public spending cuts. Come the next general election, the accusation will not be that Starmer's Labour cosied up to the Tories for power, but that they embodied them: their cruelty, their austerity and, ultimately, their failure. In the event the rebel amendment wins or Downing Street is forced to pull the vote to save face, it cannot undo the fact that the government wished to enact these cuts in the first place. If the bill does go ahead, the division lobby will shine a light not simply on the chasms in the Labour party, but on those between compassion and careerism, bravery and betrayal. Forget the MPs who rebel over cutting disabled people's benefits – remember those who don't. This is Labour's poll tax. Its tuition fees. Its Partygate. Just as the Iraq war was for Tony Blair, disability cuts is the moral stain that will mark Starmer's government and the party for years to come. Severely disabled and ill people are going to be starved, isolated and degraded as a result of this policy. No Labour MP who backs it should be forgiven. Frances Ryan is a Guardian columnist
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour rebels at risk of losing seats over Starmer's benefits cuts
Dozens of Labour rebel MPs could lose their seats to Sir Keir Starmer's welfare cuts if benefit claimants turn against the Government, analysis shows. The Prime Minister is facing the biggest rebellion of his premiership over cuts to Universal Credit and personal independence payments (PIP), which are paid to benefit claimants with disabilities. The plans, estimated to save £5 billion a year, have caused uproar on the Labour benches after the Government published an impact assessment that admitted the reforms could push 50,000 children into poverty. More than 120 Labour MPs have signed a rebel amendment to abandon the plans, which could force a defeat of the Government if they are supported by the Conservatives. Telegraph analysis shows that 51 of the rebel MPs have smaller majorities than the number of PIP claimants in their constituency, sparking fears of mass defeats at the next election. The data suggest that Sir Keir will struggle to convince many of the rebels to back his welfare reforms, because they are concerned about losing their seats. MPs have long complained that while Labour pushes through its agenda in Parliament with its large majority, constituents confront them at the weekend with concerns about Sir Keir's policies. Meanwhile, Reform UK has made significant gains in many of the so-called Red Wall marginals, many of which are poorer than the average. Labour MPs say that constituents elected the party on the promise of protecting the lower-paid and vulnerable, and Sir Keir risks driving those voters away with his reforms. The MPs on the Telegraph list include Neil Duncan-Jordan, one of the rebel ringleaders, who has a majority of 18, and Tan Dhesi, one of the most high-profile signatories to the amendment. Others include Ian Lavery and Jon Trickett, veteran rebels who are unlikely to be convinced to back the Government by threats from the Labour whips. Cat Eccles, the Labour MP for Stourbridge, who is also on the list, said on Wednesday that she would be willing to lose the party whip over the vote. She told Times Radio that the number of MPs willing to vote against the Government was 'much bigger than we imagine'. The analysis shows that constituencies with large numbers of PIP claimants are also more likely to be marginal with Reform UK, which has been ahead of Labour in the polls since April. In seats where there are more PIP claimants than the MP has a majority, the average lead Labour has over Reform is 21 per cent, compared with 36 per cent in other seats. One MP who is at risk of losing their seat because of the reforms said that Labour rebels were 'responding to issues that have been raised in their own constituencies', adding: 'That's how democracy is meant to work.' 'There is a correlation between where the rebels are and constituencies where Labour is in first [place] and Reform is in second,' the MP told The Telegraph. 'But it's more to do with the fact that there are so many benefit claimants.' Labour's reforms to PIP will reduce the eligibility criteria for the benefit, which the Office for Budget Responsibility says is likely to lead to one in four current claimants losing their entitlement. PIP is a separate benefit to Universal Credit and is designed to pay for the additional cost of daily life for disabled people. But Sir Keir has said the system 'doesn't work as it is' and must be reformed, to reduce a ballooning benefits bill that is set to increase by £18 billion in the next five years. Ministers have defended the cuts with statistics that show the rising cost of PIP is 'unsustainable' and that 1,000 new people receive it every day. But cutting benefits is considered a sacred cow by many Labour voters, who have interpreted the plans as a betrayal of the party's principles by Sir Keir. Prof Sir John Curtice, the veteran pollster, told The Telegraph: 'While support for the increasing welfare benefits have gone down, there is still little support for cutting it. 'Among Labour voters, twice as many think it's too difficult to claim benefits as say it is too easy. 'Whatever the potential impact on those with disability benefits, there's a wider thing that it's not really something that most Labour voters are expecting.' Luke Tryl, the director of the non-profit More in Common, said that Sir Keir was facing the twin challenges of many seats with low majorities and a broad coalition of different voters who are difficult to please at once. 'It is not an easy coalition to keep happy on tough issues like this, and it is also an unwieldy coalition,' he said. 'It is much easier to keep a broad coalition together in easier times. But the whole mantra of this government, as they have said themselves, is about choices, and making choices means picking parts of the coalition to win or lose.'
Scotsman
32 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Why UK needs to pander to Trump but should not necessarily believe him
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Following the US attack on Iran, Donald Trump said its nuclear enrichment facilities had been 'completely and fully obliterated', setting back the tyrannical regime's plans by 'decades'. However, according to a leaked preliminary assessment by the Pentagon, the missile strikes only caused a delay of a few months. Amid the ensuing uproar over these very different takes, the US President attacked the media for reporting the classified document's findings, saying they were "scum" and "disgusting", while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused those behind the leak of being "professional stabbers". Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But, clearly, what matters is what has actually happened. If Iran still has the ability to quickly develop nuclear weapons, the world needs to be alive to that threat. With the situation still unclear, it would be far better to err on the side of caution. Keir Starmer speaks to US President Donald Trump at the Nato summit in The Hague (Picture: Kin Cheung/pool) | Getty Images Axis of Autocracies Where Trump deserves credit is that the US attack has demonstrated to Iran's leaders how vulnerable they are, and this may have a deterring effect on a regime, widely despised by its own people, which poses a very real threat to world peace. It is a member of what former Nato Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has described as the 'Axis of Autocracies', along with Russia, China and North Korea. The combined threat these dictatorships pose is the reason why the world needs a much stronger Nato. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad And that means European leaders must sometimes swallow their pride and be rather sycophantic towards Trump, even as he continues to cast doubt on his commitment to the Nato treaty which states an attack on one will be treated as an attack on all. The UK and Europe have no choice but to spend more on defence – commensurate with the increased threats facing the world and also, again erring on the side of caution, in case Trump decides to withdraw from the alliance, formally or not.
