Category Archives: Britain

Britain, Defence, Government, Military, Politics, Society

Strategic Defence Review: Falls far short of being “war ready”

DEFENCE

THE UK GOVERNMENT has unveiled its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review (SDR) with great fanfare. Headed by former NATO chief George Robertson, it has been presented as a “root and branch review” of our military policy, and points the way to “a new era for defence”.

How pitiful then that the announcement has been overshadowed by the Defence Secretary quibbling over how much the Government is willing to spend. Just days ago, John Healey declared there was “no doubt” the UK would hit its target of spending 3 per cent of GDP (from the current 2.3 per cent) on defence by 2034, and promised a “certain decade of rising defence spending”. But that commitment now seems less than cast iron, as Healey has retreated to the language of “aims” and “ambitions” when referring to the target.

If he didn’t know how much he’s spending immediately prior to the SDR then what confidence can we have in any of his and Starmer’s promises? It betrays a disarray at the heart of defence, for the Defence Secretary’s main job is to get the money right.

That aside, some of the review’s proposals that have been in the public domain for a while are welcome – in particular, the revelation that the Government will build six new munitions factories, given that our industrial capacity has been depleted for decades.

Supplying arms to Ukraine since 2022 has severely diminished our stocks. Expanding home-grown munitions manufacturing will allow us to replenish our stores and reduce our reliance on the US and Germany. And the jobs it will create, including hundreds of highly skilled roles, can only be a good thing.

The Government’s decision to build up to 12 attack submarines as part of the AUKUS programme run by Australia, the UK and US will also create thousands of jobs. Questions remain, however, on just how many of these submarines will fall under the command of the Royal Navy or go to the Royal Australian Navy. Any expansion of our conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet must also be matched by investment in recruiting and retraining personnel, as the service desperately struggles to man its fleet as it is.

It also appears that the Government is finally taking seriously the possibility of the UK coming under ballistic missile attack, with the review pledging to introduce new defence “shields”. While an Israel-style Iron Dome system to intercept long-range aerial attacks sounds justified, it would be prohibitively expensive to envelop the whole of the British Isles. Nonetheless we do need much more than the nothing we have today – namely, missile defences over key strategic targets like government buildings, airfields, and manufacturing hubs.

Yet, the announcement of 7,000 new British-built “missiles” is concerning if that number also includes attack drones, as Healey has indicated. If actual missiles turn out to be a small proportion of this total, such a move will hardly jangle nerves in Moscow or Beijing. The Russians continue to launch hundreds of drones and missiles at Ukraine most nights and China has over 10,000 missiles ready to fire.

And when it comes to drones, what type are we investing in? The Houthi rebels in Yemen have made light work of taking out the US’s £22million MQ-9 Reaper drones, downing six of them in the last three months.

We need to expand and diversify our stocks, training soldiers to operate lightweight, cheap drones, in particular, which have proved so nimble and deadly above the steppes of Ukraine.

So, while there is much to welcome and applaud in this review, there is also much more to be done. Elsewhere, reports have emerged that the Government is in highly sensitive talks to buy F35A fighter jets, which can carry nuclear bombs.

This would broaden our nuclear deterrent beyond our four Vanguard-class submarines but would also tie us to yet more US technology. The warplane can use only the B61-12 bomb – stocks of which are strictly controlled by the Pentagon.

Nor would the jet, which needs a longer runway to take off, be compatible with the Royal Navy’s two aircraft carriers – so the flight decks of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will remain embarrassingly bare. And we are still shamefully unable to train our own pilots. The current Hawk T2 training aircraft is so unreliable that the RAF is sending new pilots overseas to earn their wings. A replacement is urgently needed.

On the ground, our armoured personnel carriers lack anti-tank systems, making them little more than battlefield taxis. The troops they carry will also be dangerously exposed on any future frontline because they have virtually no air cover, due to so few aircraft, pilots and drones.

The latest hi-tech kit and equipment is always welcome but it’s useless without the personnel to put it to use in action. One critical thing the Ukraine war has taught us is that troop numbers are important – and we seriously need more recruits in every branch of the Armed Forces.

Healey is expected to set a long-term target for increasing the size of the Army, but some suspect that increase will largely come from a mooted “Home Guard” force, which will be established to protect domestic infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants.

If the review fails to commit us to expand the Army to at least 100,000 full-time soldiers (up from just 73,000), we will remain incapable of prosecuting a land offensive in eastern Europe were Russia to invade a NATO ally, at a time when the US is retreating from the European theatre.

Given the current budgetary constraints, it is unlikely the SDR will get the UK anywhere close to being “war ready”. The financial resources just aren’t available.

Standard
Britain, Economic, European Commission, European Union, Government, Politics

UK-EU trade deal: a logical step forward

BRITAIN

Intro: The agreement made with the European Union will have limited tangible gains, but at least the tone set by the prime minister is a positive one

MUCH is being made of Sir Keir Starmer’s deal with the EU, but many things still remain to be worked out. The agreement which was announced in London should be regarded as a staging post rather than a final destination. It was, in effect, a commitment to have more meetings at which negotiators will try to make more deals.

On the issue of visa for young people and the UK’s mooted return to the Erasmus university-exchange scheme, there is little clarity beyond the rebranding of “youth mobility” as “experience”. A decision on the level of fees that European students must pay has also been kicked into the long grass. So have some details of how the UK will work with the bloc on policing and security, including the use of controversial facial-recognition technology in tackling drug and people smuggling across borders.

Increased cooperation on defence is significant and timely, given the ramping up of geopolitical instability under Donald Trump – although British arms manufacturers will have to go on pushing for access to the EU’s £150bn fund. On food and fishing, terms have been decided. Fewer checks on exports, including meat, will benefit UK food producers, particularly the smaller ones that were worst affected by Brexit. For Europeans, mainly the French, the big win is a 12-year agreement on fishing in British waters.

The 41% of UK goods exported to the EU, worth £385bn, are more than is sent to the US and India combined – making this by far the most important trade deal so far. Though the UK remains outside the customs union, and regulations governing other goods including medicines have not been relaxed, the new measures mark a significant easing of trade.

By contrast, the new dispensation for UK travellers to join European passport queues, and looser rules about pets, are more about style than substance. But while conveniences like these will not bring the economic benefits that the PM seeks, they do send a signal. For ministers, any hint of an interest in rejoining the EU remains taboo. Instead, this modest scaling back of Tory-erected barriers is designed to show voters that Sir Keir is operating a rational and responsible government that puts the interests of British businesses and consumers first.

It should not have taken nine years since the referendum to reach this point. A group of around 60 Labour MPs is rightly pushing for the government to be more ambitious, emboldened by polling showing that most voters now think Brexit was a mistake. Free movement, however, remains a red line, and one inked in all the more vividly after the strong showing of Reform UK in recent local elections and national polls. This was also Starmer’s real chance to counter anti-immigration sentiment, not capitulating to it. He may yet come to rue his decision on this.

Among disappointing omissions is the lack of a mechanism to make touring by our creative artists, like musicians, easier. Nonetheless, the agreement is a much-needed step forward, even though the actual gains for the UK have been overstated.

Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, was more accurate when she spoke of the deal as “framing” an improved future relationship. If Sir Keir wants to reverse the damage done to the country since Brexit, he will require to paint a picture of why an outward-looking, interconnected UK is more likely to succeed. Not one that has become an insular nation under Brexit.

Standard
Britain, Government, Immigration, Politics, Society

Labour’s immigration plan: language not fit for purpose

BRITAIN

IMMIGRATION policy is an important plank of any government, and the one led by Sir Keir Starmer is no exception. Laws are required to establish the terms under which migration to the UK is allowed, and to deal with the range of complexities surrounding irregular arrivals. But the decision to publish an immigration white paper (which allows for consultation) a week after Reform UK made significant gains in local elections, where Nigel Farage is riding high in national polls, is hard to defend. Rather than defusing public concerns, the PM risks playing into the hard right’s hands – and directly undermining the community cohesion he says he wants to protect.

Some of the proposed measures are reasonable. Others are not. Visa rules are complicated and ministers have identified real concerns about the way the system works. But the timing and language, particularly Sir Keir’s references to an “island of strangers” and forces “pulling our country apart”, were dreadful choices. The danger is that such rhetoric ends up reinforcing divisions and xenophobia.

Labour’s target is the opposition’s record. Starmer was right to assert that the policies of the Conservatives were a cynical disgrace. Legal migration rose from 224,000 in 2019 to a staggering level of 906,000 in 2023. Voters who were entitled to think they had opted for reduced inward migration, both in the Brexit referendum and by electing a prime minister, Boris Johnson, who vowed to “take back control” of borders, instead got a free-market experiment. While the Tories ramped up their inhumane Rwanda scheme as a distraction, employers intensified overseas recruitment as skill thresholds were lowered.

In manufacturing, transport, and engineering, the subsequent increase in foreign employees is correlated with a decline in the UK workforce and apprenticeships. The failure of this laissez-faire approach to the economy has not been limited to jobs. Living standards have stagnated, with lower rates of growth than in the eurozone and US. The Labour government is right that employers should invest in people here, as well as scouting in other countries for highly skilled workers. If it is well run, the new Labour Market Evidence Group could play a positive role in a more industrially activist government. It is good to signal a looser approach to refugees working, and reasonable to expect migrant workers’ dependants to learn English. Councils should support this.

However, the white paper, in both tone and substance, is distinctly illiberal. It uses the language of “fairness”, “integration”, and “public confidence”. And yet, its core proposals represent a consolidation of executive power, a curtailment of individual rights, and a weakening of judicial independence. These are not reforms – they are regressions.

The pledge to deport more foreign criminals speaks volumes of tabloid politics. Granting counter-terrorism-style powers to the Border Force risks stoking, not easing, fear. Cancelling social care visas on the grounds of “abuse” threatens a sector already on the brink. Raising income thresholds for those with dependants penalises lower-paid workers. And while student visas are in need of review, the real issue is the crisis in underfunding of higher education – not the students themselves.

Starmer’s anger about the Tories’ track record is justified. It harms democracy, and has helped opportunists like Nigel Farage, when parties tell voters one thing while doing another. But past mistakes do not justify present ones. Migrants have been and will remain a vital part of the UK’s labour force and student bodies. Positives that require to be reinforced loud and clear.

Standard