Ukraine peacekeeping plans to continue despite lack of progress in Riyadh
Planning for peacekeeping operations in Ukraine is set to continue, despite few signs of progress towards a ceasefire agreement.
Military chiefs from the 'coalition of the willing' are expected to hold further meetings at the UK's permanent joint headquarters in Northwood throughout the week in preparation for a European-led peacekeeping force.
The meetings follow talks between the heads of the British and French armed forces in London on Monday, at which Admiral Sir Tony Radakin and General Thierry Burkhard discussed efforts to 'galvanise' Europe's response to the situation in Ukraine.
Admiral Sir Tony said: 'Europe's two leading nuclear powers are stepping up to forge a stronger and deeper partnership that has a vital foundational role to play in the security of the continent.
'Today's deliberations will help shape the future of British and French military cooperation, and our shared efforts to support Ukraine with military aid now and after any peace deal.'
But progress towards such a deal appears slow, with talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, yielding no major announcements on Monday.
US officials have held separate talks with Ukrainian and Russian counterparts in an effort to secure agreement on a partial ceasefire after Moscow rejected a US-Ukraine proposal for a 30-day unconditional ceasefire.
On Monday evening, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky said he expected his officials to meet with the US negotiators again, but did not specify when, and no deal has been announced.
Meanwhile, Number 10 has sought to shrug off comments by US special envoy Steve Witkoff, who dismissed Sir Keir Starmer's plans for an international force in Ukraine as 'a posture and a pose'.
Mr Witkoff said in an interview with US journalist Tucker Carlson that it was based on a 'simplistic' idea of the Prime Minister and other European leaders thinking 'we have all got to be like Winston Churchill'.
Asked if Sir Keir is worried by the remarks, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'No, the PM has repeatedly said that a lasting peace in Ukraine can only be achieved if we provide real and credible security assurances to deter Putin.
'And the coalition of the willing is a group of nations politically aligned to the defence, security and sovereignty of Ukraine… if there is a deal, it's a deal that has to be defended.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Courage on the seas, silence on our shores over Gaza
Scottish Green Party co-leader Lorna Slater In the early hours of yesterday morning, the world witnessed yet another brazen violation of international law by the Israeli government. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, 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... The Madleen, a UK-flagged humanitarian aid vessel, was intercepted by Israeli forces in international waters while en route to Gaza. Aboard were 12 peace activists, including high-profile figures such as climate activist Greta Thunberg, Irish actor Liam Cunningham and French MEP Rima Hassan. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This ship was not a threat, Israel knew that before it had even left port. It carried no weapons, only vital humanitarian supplies - food, water and medicine for the besieged people of Gaza. Greta Thunberg with part of the crew of the ship Madleen Yet, despite the clear protections of international maritime law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Israeli forces boarded and seized the vessel in a violent, nighttime raid. Let us be clear, this was not just an attack on a ship. It was an attack on humanitarian principles, on international law and on the right of civilians to live free from siege and starvation. It was an attempt to silence the growing global demand for justice and dignity for Palestinians. Scotland and indeed the UK, cannot look away. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The presence of global figures like Thunberg and Cunningham on the Madleen highlights the international scale of concern over the continued blockade of Gaza and is putting the strongest of spotlights on Israel's actions facilitating arguably the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. We must not allow the UK Government's silence to imply consent. Successive governments have remained complicit in the face of clear war crimes, continuing to arm and support the Israeli regime while turning their backs on the victims of its actions. With a UK vessel now seized and its passengers detained, the Labour government's refusal to speak out is both shameful and dangerous. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We cannot claim to stand for peace, human rights and the rule of law while funding, arming and enabling a regime that so flagrantly violates all three. We must demand action. The blockade of Gaza must end. The UK must halt all arms sales to Israel, suspend military cooperation and stand on the side of humanity. The Madleen's mission was to shine a light on the suffering of Gaza and the complicity of the international community in its ongoing tragedy. That light is now brighter than ever. What happens next will show whether the world is willing to act or merely watch. Lorna Slater, Scottish Green party co-leader
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level
Skilled workers are only eligible to come to the UK if they earn a salary of £38,700 or more, compared to £29,000 required mainly for British citizens or settled residents to bring their partner to the country under family visas. The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The previous government planned to introduce the higher threshold for family visa applicants to be equivalent to the skilled worker level. But the committee's report said: 'Given the family route that we are reviewing has a completely different objective and purpose to the work route, we do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method. 'We do not recommend the approach based on the skilled worker salary threshold as it is unrelated to the family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8).' Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to private and family life that can be applied to migration cases in the UK. The UK's current £29,000 threshold is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. The analysis found a high proportion of applicants for partner visas are women and 90% are under the age of 44. Pakistan is the largest nationality to use the route applying from outside the country. The committee's analysis gave some options that a threshold of £24,000 to £28,000 could give more priority to economic wellbeing, such as reducing the burden to taxpayers, than on family life. It also suggested a criteria of £23,000 to £25,000 to ensure families can support themselves but not necessarily require them to earn a salary above minimum wage. Chairman of MAC, Professor Brian Bell, said: 'While the decision on where to set the threshold is ultimately a political one, we have provided evidence on the impacts of financial requirements on families and economic wellbeing, and highlight the key considerations the government should take into account in reaching its decision.' While the committee said it is not possible to predict how different threshold changes would impact net migration, it said lowering the amount to £24,000, for example, could mean an increase of around one to three percent of projected future net migration. The report added: 'Determining the MIR threshold involves striking a balance between economic wellbeing and family life. 'Whilst a lower threshold would favour family life and entail a higher net fiscal cost to the taxpayer, a higher threshold (below a certain level) would favour economic wellbeing. 'But a higher number of families would experience negative impacts relating to financial pressures, prolonged separation, relationships, adults' mental health and children's mental health and education.' The committee advised against raising the threshold for families with children as despite them facing higher living costs, the impacts on family life appear 'particularly significant' for children. It also recommended keeping the income amount required the same across all regions of the UK. The MAC also said their review was 'greatly hindered' by insufficient data and urged for better data collection by the Home Office on characteristics of each applicant to be linked to outcomes to inform further policy decisions. Reacting to the recommendations, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the report shows that raising the salary threshold will drive migration numbers down and urged for the threshold to be increased to £38,000. 'Migration figures remain far too high. It's time to end ECHR obstruction, raise the salary thresholds, and take back control of who comes into this country,' he said. 'As Kemi and I said on Friday, if the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course. More broadly, the government has already committed to legislate to clarify the application of Article 8 of the ECHR for applicants, caseworkers and the courts.'
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Major predictions what will and won't be in Rachel Reeves' Spending Review
Chancellor Rachel Reeves will on Wednesday announce her major Spending Review, setting out government budgets for future years - here's everything you need to know Rachel Reeves will this week announce her major Spending Review, setting out government budgets for the next three years. The Chancellor will take to the despatch box in the Commons at 12:30pm on Wednesday, after Prime Minister's Questions. She will set out how much each department has been allocated in her spending plans over the next few years. Billions of pounds will be splashed on the NHS, schools and tech, but some areas are expected to face painful cuts. Negotiations went down to the wire, with Cabinet ministers battling it out for bigger allocations of cash from the Treasury. Downing Street said the Spending Review was finally "settled" on Monday, just two days before Ms Reeves's big statement. No10 said tough decisions had to be made in the first few months of the Labour Government, but claimed the economy was on a firmer footing after the mess the Tories made of the public finances. Speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, the PM's official spokesman said: "The spending review is settled, we will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off. The first job of the Government was to stabilise the British economy and the public finances, and now we move into a new chapter to deliver the promise and change." Here's everything you need to now about the Spending Review. What is a Spending Review? The Spending Review is how the Government hashes out departments' budgets. Ms Reeves will set out detailed plans for day-to-day spending over the next three years and for capital budgets for the next five years. Day-to-day spending refers to funding for resources, including salaries and supplies, for areas including the NHS, the armed forces, the police, prisons and other public services. Capital spending involves the investment allocated for long-term projects like infrastructure and buildings, such as new roads or hospitals. Ms Reeves launched this phase of the Spending Review in December. She ordered Cabinet ministers to go through every single pound the government spends to find savings and efficiencies in their budgets. It is the first time in over a decade and a half that government departments have been asked to take such an approach. Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones earlier this year embarked on a tour of nations and regions to shadow doctors, nurses and police officers to learn how taxpayers' cash is being spent across Britain. He spent time on the frontline observing public sector workers to review what money is spent on but also how public services can be modernised so money is spent more efficiently. What is the process of a Spending Review? The Spending Review was only settled on Monday - two days before Ms Reeves will announce the plan in Parliament. Negotiations went down to the wire, with multiple members of the Cabinet said to be dissatisfied with the level of funding proposed. Fears have been raised in recent weeks that the Government's key pledges - such as to hire 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs or to build 1.5million new homes - will be put at risk if not enough funding is allocated to those areas. Deputy PM and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper were the last two Cabinet ministers to agree a deal, with both said to be unhappy with the amount of money offered to their departments. The Spending Review process is competitive, with departments being forced to go head-to-head to win funding from a limited pot of money. Advisers have been keeping their cards close to their chest, remaining tight-lipped about how much their department has been offered. One source said: "You take the best deal you can get." What will be in the Spending Review? There will be a £190billion increase in funding for day-to-day spending over the period, funded partly by tax hikes in the Budget in the autumn. A shake-up of borrowing rules has also freed up around £113billion for capital investment for big ticket items like homes, transport and energy projects. One of the biggest winners of Wednesday's Spending Review is expected to be the science and technology sector, which will get an £86billion package of funding into research areas, including into new drug treatments and longer-lasting batteries. The health service is also expected to be a big winner, with a 2.8% hike to the Department of Health's annual budget - amounting to around £30billion in additional funding by 2028/29. The Mirror understands schools will also get a major boost to per pupil funding, with £4.5billion extra for the core schools budget. This includes a major expansion of free school meals to 500,000 more pupils. The Ministry of Justice, which was one of the first departments to settle its budget, will see a £4.7billion funding injection to build three new prisons amid an ongoing overcrowding crisis in jails. The Ministry of Defence also already had a clearer idea of its funding settlement, with the PM having earlier this year announced plans to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with an aim to get it to 3% by 2034. Some £15.6billion will also be handed to mayors for major transport projects across the country. This will go towards plans to improve trams, trains and buses in the North and the Midlands. While huge amounts of cash will be announced in the Spending Review, departments are also expected to face deep cuts. Ms Reeves last week admitted not every department will "get everything they want". "I have had to say no to things that I want to do too," she said. "That's not because of my fiscal rules. It is a result of 14 years of Conservative maltreatment of our public services, our public realm and of our economy." What won't be in the Spending Review? Unlike Budgets, Spending Reviews have no legal basis. Instead, they set out what the Government intends to do with its spending plans over the following years. There will be no tax changes in the Spending Review as these require new legislation. When the Chancellor presents the Budget, all the measures on taxation are contained in an annual Finance Bill. Parliament debates the Budget and scrutinises the Finance Bill. This does not happen with a Spending Review. It means some announcements - including the winter fuel payment U-turn - might be mentioned at the Spending Review. But details on exactly where the money will come from to pay for the policy are not expected until the Autumn Budget later this year.
