At the start of today’s NATO summit, the British government has announced it will increase military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. This comes just two weeks after Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a £11bn increase for defence in the Spending Review, with a target of increasing it further to 2.6% of GDP by 2027. The government is also accelerating and increasing the rise, stating it will reach 4.1% of GDP by 2027.
This announcement follows months of pressure from US President Donald Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte for NATO members to double military spending in order to fund Trump’s global war drive.
The government currently spends nearly £90 billion annually on military spending. According to the IFS, “increasing ‘core defence’ spending from 2.6% to 3.5% of national income would mean, in today’s terms, spending around an additional £30 billion a year.” So this would see military spending increasing to £120 billion per year. On top of this, the government is spending well over £205 billion on replacing its nuclear submarines, and wants to spend millions more on nuclear-capable F35A fighter jets from the US.
The government is trying to justify this disastrous drive in war and militarism by saying it is creating ‘better security’ for ‘working people’. But spending £120 billion every year on lethal weaponry will make the world more dangerous, increase poverty and drive climate breakdown. It will result in even greater cuts to public spending and vital public services such as health and social care. Arguments that pouring billions into militarism will kick-start the economy are false, with research showing areas such as health are far more jobs rich than defence.
These huge increases show that Britain’s economic priorities are being determined by Donald Trump and NATO, not by what is actually in the real security interests of the British population.
The government must end its warmongering. It is facilitating a genocide, escalating the devastating war in Ukraine and risks dragging us into a global war with Iran. This has nothing to do with keeping the population ‘secure’. Instead, it should prioritise the health and wellbeing of its population and meet its international obligations on disarmament, climate and development.