Sir Keir must not surrender to Brussels
For two centuries and counting, whether the threat arose from Germany, France or Russia, Britain's military has played a critical role in keeping tyranny from the European continent. With the United States increasingly unwilling to pay for the defence of countries that seem to treat Washington with a combination of entitlement and disdain, the United Kingdom's military is more vital to European security than it has been in decades.
This appears to have passed Sir Keir Starmer by. The idea that the EU could need defence co-operation with the UK more than Britain needs a further deal with the Continent is anathema to a Prime Minister who spent the Brexit years marinating in Remainer talking points. It is, nevertheless, more than likely true. The EU needs the reassurance and participation of the United Kingdom in its defence. The question is what price we should ask in return.
The status of Northern Ireland, for instance, is deeply unsatisfactory, and efforts to remove the barriers to the free flow of trade across the Irish Sea should be undertaken. The EU appears to wish this to be achieved through a deal which would see the UK align with laws made in Brussels, and submit to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. This, surely, would be an excellent point to leverage the threat of non-co-operation on defence matters, and to highlight just how weak the bloc's hand is.
For Sir Keir, regrettably, Britain's participation in Europe's defence is a prize and a privilege that London, and not Brussels, should pay for. As such, there is a real risk that the Prime Minister is about to sign away further fishing rights in the UK's waters in exchange for the right to pay into an EU rearmament fund where France is angling to limit the share of spending that can go to British companies, while also giving Brussels greater rights to interfere in the running of the British economy.
It is entirely understandable that European capitals might still be insistent that costs be imposed on Britain in case the visible successes of the Brexit project – and in particular, the flurry of free trade deals struck over the past year – might give various countries pause for thought about the continued desirability of membership. It is not clear why Sir Keir Starmer should be willing to go along with this.
If Brussels wants British soldiers deployed in its military missions and British foreign policy tightly aligned with decisions made in the bloc, then it is Europe that should be offering concessions. Sir Keir would do well to remember this. So, too, should the EU: given the surging support for Reform UK, and Nigel Farage's militant promises to tear up lopsided treaties with the bloc, a bad deal may well prove to be a short-lived one.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
42 minutes ago
- Times
Defence spending is increasing. Do we get bang for our buck?
B uckle up: the British state is about to commit a lot of money it does not really have to restore defence spending to levels last seen in the 2000s. Indeed it may have to go further: at the Nato summit this week the organisation's secretary general, Mark Rutte, will push member states to commit themselves to spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence. For years the fall in defence spending was used to pay for a rise in healthcare and welfare costs — the peace dividend — but defence has come calling again, and that transfer cannot be reversed. Instead, by squeezing a few years of the foreign aid budget, the prime minister has managed to raise defence spending to 2.6 per cent of GDP by 2027-28. We will learn a bit more about where that money will be spent in a national security strategy to be published this week. But will 2.6 per cent make much of a difference? Will a 0.3 percentage point rise in spending over the next few years really result in a meaningful expansion of our armed forces?
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Abortion overreach will backfire on women
One of the many, many reasons I prefer living in the UK to the US is the former's more clement weather, which reflects the country's calmer politics. By contrast, America's storms and wildfires feel like a metaphor for its political debates, not least on abortion. So it's apt that, just as a heatwave arrives in this country, the British left loses its mind over abortion. Last week MPs voted to support an amendment, proposed by the Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, which argues that women who obtain an abortion should never be prosecuted, even if it's after the legal 24-week limit. This sounds good in theory (abortion should not be criminalised, yes, agreed) but is in fact completely nuts. The law already allows late-term abortions in extreme circumstances, but now a woman could have an abortion the day before her due date for any reason she fancied. Now, very few women will do this, and in fact very few ever have, and the harrowing stories that have been used to justify this vote largely took place during the Covid lockdown, when women were buying abortion pills in the post and couldn't see doctors to find out how far along they were in their pregnancy. So: not a widespread problem, and one that could be resolved by re-examining how the Crown Prosecution Service deals with these sad cases. • `Read more: MPs vote to decriminalise abortion Instead, MPs have decided to chuck out the UK's heretofore liberal but pragmatic approach in favour of something far more radical that most people don't want: 87 per cent of the British public are in favour of legalised abortion, but more than half draw the line at the abortion of a healthy baby over the six-month limit. Antoniazzi's amendment upends the delicate compromise that existed until now. Sensing their moment has come, politicians on the right are already arguing that the time limit here should be cut, in line with most of Europe. Meanwhile, some on the left are arguing the amendment doesn't go far enough. Stella Creasy proposed a further amendment, which was written by the part-time tax barrister, occasional fox murderer and full-time tweeter Jolyon Maugham, that would have made it impossible even to prosecute those who coerced women into late-term abortions. This was considered so extreme it was rejected by every abortion provider in the country, and also, wisely, by MPs. Undaunted, Creasy, who seems to believe she represents Washington DC rather than Walthamstow, implied that rejecting her amendment was on a par with the overturning of Roe v Wade. By way of evidence, she reeled off voguish American clichés ('the Donald Trump playbook', 'women's bodies as battlefields') which always suggest the speaker is so high on progressive platitudes they have turned off their brain. If Creasy and her ilk want to take lessons from America, they should look at what happened last week to what is euphemistically called 'paediatric gender healthcare'. On Wednesday the Supreme Court allowed red states like Tennessee to ban doctors from giving hormone treatments and body-altering surgery to gender-confused children. It is the latest blow for the gender movement in the US, and it was entirely caused by overreach by activists. Until about a decade ago, people who wanted to live as the opposite sex were seen as a niche adult demographic who should be treated with kindness. But activist groups destroyed that moderate status quo with their ludicrous arguments, such as that male rapists could be sent to women's prisons and there should be no age limit on body-altering surgery for children. The Biden administration blindly supported them until belatedly realising it was following the wilfully blind, and American politicians are now, at last, trying to undo some of the damage. None of this worked out well for trans people or the left. Progressive overreach and reality denial will always cause a backlash, something Maugham should know, given his own flailing gender activism. Creasy, too, has argued that 'some women are born with penises', suggesting a strong disconnect between her beliefs and actual biology. I'm not sure when Labour politicians decided to follow their Democrat counterparts in defending the most extreme version of a social shift, but they need to get a grip. One reason US feminists lost the abortion argument is they insisted abortion was no big deal and derided Hillary Clinton for describing it as something that should be 'safe, legal and rare', saying that last word was 'stigmatising'. It turned out that it's a lot more stigmatising to pretend getting an abortion is just a jolly lark that should come with a loyalty card. When I was 23 and 11 weeks pregnant, I had an abortion, an experience neither jolly nor terrible but necessary. Afterwards, I felt pure gratitude, which is how I still feel about it now. Since then I've sampled many experiences on the fertility menu: given birth to twins, miscarried, had a baby. You don't need to be a wet-eyed sentimentalist to know a baby becomes a baby well before it's born; I could feel when it happened to all of my babies at about the six-month mark. The legal limit exists for good reasons, including the mother's mental health, and maintaining public support for abortion. Arguing that a woman has the right to terminate a fully gestated healthy baby is the most self-defeating version of the pro-choice movement, because it will reinvigorate the anti-abortion argument in this country, just as arguing for the most extreme version of trans rights destroyed the moderate accommodations that existed before. Labour has kicked a hornets' nest with this vote. And it's women who are going to be stung.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: Dogma cares little for the state of Britain's economy
This country's economy is now in serious peril. This is not only because the Government is nudging at the very outer limits of what it can raise in tax and borrowing – though it is. It is also because that government is increasingly driven by ferocious dogma which cares little for such concerns. It may be that some in the Cabinet can see the danger, yet others do not even view it as a danger, but as an opportunity for yet more upheaval and dramatic change. The extraordinary developments of last week, in which the current very large Labour majority in Parliament brought about revolutions in abortion law and in assisted dying, are a warning that we are now in uncharted waters. It may possibly be that we have never had a government whose parliamentary forces are so radical. And the uncrowned queen of those forces is the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, increasingly influential and remarkably effective in the Commons and in Whitehall. It is true that there has always been a role for disruptive and troublemaking men and women near the top of the Labour Party. In the Tony Blair years, a similar position was filled by the late John Prescott, a majestic steam-powered Dreadnought originating in the (now remote) days of real class war. Let nobody underestimate Lord Prescott's considerable influence on the government he served. But Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the apparatus of New Labour kept him under control. In this case, it looks very much as if a confident and popular Ms Rayner has slipped free of any restraint by the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. Her Employment Rights Bill, which is alarming businesses all over the country, would have been strangled at birth in the days of Blairism. The unions would have been told – rightly – that the public had grown heartily sick of their overmighty antics in the past, and did not want to see them given back the unrestrained power they had rightly lost. And while Sir Keir and his Chancellor Rachel Reeves must know this, they seem either powerless to act, or surprisingly untroubled by the danger of it. Speaking to The Mail on Sunday last week, Ms Reeves simply evaded the question of Ms Rayner's plans. When a successful businessman such as Sir James Dyson accuses you of being 'vindictive' and of 'waging a war on aspiration', you really ought to listen. It is on the success of such businessmen that any future economic growth must be based. Without that growth, where are the taxes to come from to pay for the advanced welfare state in which we live? So we must applaud the open letter to British businessmen sent out by Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith, in which he does what Sir Keir and Ms Reeves will not do, and makes it plain just how dangerous Ms Rayner's plans are. He warns those business chiefs that they are being sleepwalked into disaster, that the Rayner Bill will fundamentally change the balance of power in workplaces, at huge cost. Coming after the idiocy of the National Insurance increase, this a grave threat to the jobs of trade union members, as well as to the economy as a whole. We can only hope that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor will listen and act, for the nation's sake as well as their own.
