Switch off the editor’s digest free of charge
Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Shortly before traveling to meet Donald Trump, Sir Keir Starrer announced last week “We will keep our manifesto commitment to issue 2.5 percent of our GDP for defense. In view of the serious threats to which we are exposed, we will drive this goal so that we will hit it in 2027. “In addition, this increase in expenditure would be financed to 0.3 percent by reducing expenditure for the development of 0.5 percent of the gross national income.
The prime minister said: “In view of the ongoing and generation challenges, European countries have to do more for their own defense. This is undemanding. “But what Britain will do should also be subjected to“ economic and fiscal conditions ”, so that the increase in defense spending trivial and the additional costs that are to be borne by the public are zero. This is not a serious reaction to the challenges that Britain faces. That was true when the announcement was made. After the terrible meeting on Friday with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, it became even more true. The security of Europe now lies with the Europeans. Great Britain must be in the lead.
Already in February 2024 the Defense Committee of the House of Commons Published a report in which he argued that “there are several ability to fleet the British armed forces”. Accordingly Building the defense capacity in EuropeThe situation published by the London International Institute for Strategic Studies in November 2024 is similar in most other European forces.
In addition, these shortcomings exist despite the increasing defense spending in recent years. This is partly due to the size of the historical deficit. It is also due to the urgent need to transfer the devices to Ukraine in the past three years. This leaves a huge hole that NATO European members, including Great Britain, have to fill as soon as possible.
In view of the scaling and urgency of these prints, defense expenditure must increase considerably. Note that it was 5 percent of British GDP or more in the 1970s and 1980s. It may not have to be at this level in the long term: modern Russia is not the Soviet Union. However, it may have to be as high as that during construction, especially if the USA withdraw. It can make sense to finance the temporary increase in investments by borrowing. If the defense expenditure is to be permanently higher, taxes have to increase unless the government can find sufficient spending cuts, which is doubtful.
In the long run, higher income taxes will be the best way to share the increased defense burden. Nevertheless, the work pushes aids instead when the USA hunt in the air. Great Britain has already reduced its share of GDP to 0.5 percent under Boris Johnson for the help of 0.7 percent under David Cameron. Now it should be 0.3 percent, almost half of it should be spent on it Accommodation asylum seekers.
Support in the poorest in the world is the wrong way to finance the needs of defense. Annnelies DoddsThe international development minister had the right to withdraw. The released funds are much too small. In addition, it will increase the global misery and weaken the United Kingdom’s voice in the world. The decision is a signal for dodging and cowardice.
The truth is that the “Peace dividend” ended with the return of the war to Europe. Great Britain can and must spend more for defense. Without this, it will neither have a voice in the joint defense of his continent or will even defend itself. It must play a leading role in strengthening the European Pillar of NATO.
Fortunately, Great Britain can also realistically expect economic returns of its defense investments. Historically, wars were the mother of innovation. This was spectacular for the Second World War. Israel’s “Start -up Economy” started in his army. The Ukrainians now have revolutionized drone war. John van Reenen, Chairman of the Council of the Business Advisor of the British Chancellor of the Exchange, Rachel Reeves, has Mitated a paper This argued that an increase in defense research and development by 10 percent of private research and development by 4 percent. In Another co -authorized paperHe argues that these advantages depend on open and competitive financing of defense innovation. The crucial point, however, is that the need to spend much more for defense than more than just a necessity and more than just costs, although both are true. If this is done correctly, this is also an economic opportunity.
Today, Great Britain confronts a dark new reality. It is unlikely that this is temporary. If Russia is encouraged and the United States withdraw, the British government does not have to pretend almost nothing has changed and only a few additional costs are borne. Starer must convince the public to recognize today’s realities. So far he has been far too shy.
