UK and France order more Storm Shadow missiles and step up military co-operation
The two countries have discussed co-operation on a replacement for years but, as French president Emmanuel Macron visits the UK, the nations will commit on Thursday towards the next phase of the project for Storm Shadow's successor.
The joint development will help to sustain more than 1,300 jobs in the UK, according to the Government.
On the third day of Mr Macron's UK state visit, he and Sir Keir Starmer will also agree to deepen nuclear ties.
Britain and France, the only two nuclear powers in Europe, will state in a declaration that their nuclear deterrents – while independent – can be co-ordinated, with the aim of deterring threats like Russia from attacking Europe.
The declaration comes at a time when Donald Trump's US administration is calling on European Nato powers to take on a larger role in the alliance.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said: 'From war in Europe, to new nuclear risks and daily cyber-attacks – the threats we face are multiplying.
'As close partners and Nato allies, the UK and France have a deep history of defence collaboration and today's agreements take our partnership to the next level.
'We stand ready to use our shared might to advance our joint capabilities – equipping us for the decades to come while supporting thousands of UK jobs and keeping our people safe.'
Defence Secretary John Healey said: 'The UK and France are stepping up together to meet today's threats and tomorrow's challenges. We are committed to driving defence as an engine for growth, delivering better fighting capabilities faster, and ensuring our armed forces can operate side by side – from the High North to the Black Sea.
'This partnership strengthens our leadership in Europe, ensures continued support for Ukraine, and sends a clear signal to our adversaries that we stand stronger, together.'
Building on the 2010 Lancaster House treaties between France and the UK, the two countries will also bolster a shared military venture, known as the Combined Joint Force.
They also plan to forge closer military industrial ties, including in AI and direct energy weapons, as part of a programme dubbed the 'Entente Industrielle' by the UK Government.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
UK politicians are in the pockets of the rich. Is that democracy?
At Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, Keir Starmer responded to a question from Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay about growing calls to introduce a tax on wealth for the super-rich – those with assets above £10 million – by saying he wouldn't 'take advice' from the Greens, and insisting that 'we can't just tax our way to growth'. We can, it seems, cut our way to growth though, as long as it's those already at the greatest risk of poverty who'll bear the brunt. On Wednesday evening, 333 Labour MPs voted to cut disability benefits by £2 billion per year, halving the health element of universal credit for new claimants, and cutting it altogether for new claimants aged under 22. At a certain point, when the faces and the colour of the rosettes change but the glaring injustices remain the same, we have to ask ourselves why. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (Image: Yui Mok) A common refrain among politicians is that right-wing policies that make life harder for social security claimants – or immigrants, or any other marginalised group – are popular. So popular that they have no choice but to implement them with gusto, because that's the will of the people, I guess. Meanwhile, I suppose we are to imagine that the average British voter is kept up at night worrying about the prospect of millionaires and billionaires being asked to pay more into our public services. As Tory leader Kemi Badenoch put it at PMQs, a wealth tax would be 'a tax on all of our constituents' savings, their houses, their pensions'. Who among us doesn't know and love someone with more than £10m in assets lying around? And surely we can all agree that they're the real victims? Back in the real world, a YouGov poll last week found that 75% of people in the UK would support introducing a wealth tax of 2% on wealth above £10m. Earlier this year, YouGov conducted another poll on behalf of Oxfam which found that 79% of over 16s in Scotland would rather the government tax the richest than make cuts to public spending. (Image: YouGov) And while it's true that some voters do believe that the welfare system is too generous, and the immigrants are draining the country of resources, it's important to remember that large sections of the British media, with their own vested interests, have spent not years but decades pushing precisely this narrative. It's disingenuous at best to persuade someone of something and then behave as though it was their idea all along. Alongside campaign groups Tax Justice UK and Patriotic Millionaires UK, Oxfam identified that the government could raise up to £24bn per year through a wealth tax which would apply to only 0.04% of the population. At the same time, charities and experts from across the UK and beyond – extending to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – have highlighted the damage that cuts to social security could cause to people's ability to make ends meet or simply live with dignity. So, if it's not the electorate telling politicians which policies to pursue, and it's not the data or the impassioned pleas of experts that persuade them, then what is it that drives them to make these decisions? READ MORE: Mark Brown: Why I plan to join Scotland's new radical left party Surely the answer is obvious by now. Time and again, right-wing and supposedly centrist politicians prove that nothing matters to them than the feelings of their rich donors and supporters – and nothing matters more to those wealthy individuals and large corporations than money. Successive governments' inaction on a range of urgent issues – from climate change, to energy prices, to raising taxes to fund crumbling public services – becomes far easier to understand once you realise that standing up to behemoth corporations and their numerous beneficiaries could cost these politicians dearly. If power for power's sake is the goal, if fuelling the party machine with big donations is a worthwhile end in and of itself, and if securing oneself a cushy position after – or perhaps during – your time in office is the ultimate prize, then making an enemy out of the 1% is a senseless endeavour. The dramatic decline in political party membership numbers over the past several decades mean that parties have become more and more reliant on a small pool of wealthy donors. Analysis by the Electoral Reform Society found that, during the 2024 election campaign, Labour received £6.7m from 'mega-donors', which made up 68.5% of their total donations up to polling day. This equates to 42 times the amount they took from the same type of donors during the 2019 election campaign. David Lammy secured a personal donor a job at the Foreign Office (Image: PA) When we ask ourselves how it is that the Labour Party have sold out on so many principles in such a short period of time, the answer is in the question. What chance does the average person – or community – stand to have their voice heard and acted upon by those in power while principles and policies are being sold to the highest bidder? Just last week, it was revealed by the Democracy for Sale substack that Foreign Secretary David Lammy gave a taxpayer-funded job in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to the former UK president of multinational PR company WPP after she donated £5000 to his office ahead of the election. This is only the latest in a series of jobs for donors that Labour have been scrutinised over. Under the ideal of democracy which we are encouraged to believe the UK represents, every eligible voter should have an equal say in elections and, by extension, an equal opportunity to have a say in the decisions the elected parliament makes. How far must our political leaders stray from this principle before we recognise that we are no longer ruled by democracy but plutocracy: a society controlled by people with great wealth or income? Consider that the UK's 50 richest families hold more wealth than 50% of the population, according to analysis from the Equality Trust. And while the top 20% hold 63% of the UK's wealth, the bottom fifth have only 0.5% of the wealth. READ MORE: The best way to defeat Reform UK? Expose the gaping holes in their politics Polls might show that the vast majority of the British public want to see the wealthy taxed more, but to imagine that this information would seize the Prime Minister with an urgency to act would be to believe that all views, experiences, voices or lives are equal. You only need to look at how this government – the progressive alternative to the old government – treats the most vulnerable to know that isn't true, not under this system. As long as money talks and those without are silenced, most of us will be out here screaming into the void. In case that seems too bleak a note to end on, a reminder: it doesn't have to be this way. Just look at the growing fervency with which the Tories and now Labour have sought to quash dissent through the criminalisation of peaceful protest, and the proscription of activist groups they don't like as terrorists. Even the frantic efforts of the Government to censor a rap group, Kneecap, over political statements is revealing. These are the actions of power under threat. They are terrified of ordinary people speaking their minds and telling them in no uncertain terms that enough is enough. That, alone, should act as motivation to keep doing just that.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Arms firms are buying exclusive access to MPs for as little as £1499
It comes as the new UK Labour Government has ushered in the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced in February that the UK would increase spending on defence up to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027, raiding the international development budget. The 144-page-long Strategic Defence Review released last month details how the UK is moving to a position of 'war-fighting' readiness, including committing to procuring up to 7000 domestically built long-range weapons. Look no further than the newly created All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Defence Technology. READ MORE: Scotland's NHS ready to treat injured Gaza children, First Minister says This informal cross-party group at Westminster was only created in January 2025 but has hit the ground running with a swish website where it says it is looking to 'partner' with defence firms who can then buy exclusive access to Westminster MPs and policy makers. Demand has certainly been high. At least 37 arms firms – including industry titans Leonardo and Lockheed Martin – have already sponsored the group according to its website. Leonardo, which has a factory in Edinburgh, is known to have produced targeting systems for Israel's F-35 fighter jets, which have been used to bombard Gaza. Lockheed Martin – the world's largest arms company – also contributes parts to F-35 fighter jets. Membership comes with its perks. So-called 'Tier 1 Partners' – which the APPG recommends to start-ups – can get access to 'all organised meetings' and 'opportunities to network with MPs and policymakers' for just £1499 (below). (Image: Defence Technology APPG) At the higher price point of £5000, meanwhile, 'Tier 2 Partners' can also get 'enhanced access to exclusive APPG meetings and key discussions' as well as 'priority invitations to high-profile parliamentary engagements' (below). (Image: Defence Technology APPG) The APPG register claims the group has already received between £60,001-£61,500 for a group 'secretary' from these firms. Declassified UK reported earlier this month that RUK Advanced Systems Ltd, a weapons firm which is owned by the Israeli government, also donated at least £1499 to the group. Of the 30 MPs involved in the APPG, five are from Scottish Labour, including Gordon McKee (Glasgow South), Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar), Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudon), Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) and Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan). Other MPs on the group include Neil Shastri-Hurst (co-chair), Fred Thomas (co-chair), Sarah Bool (officer), Anna Gelderd (officer), Luke Akehurst and Iain Duncan Smith. READ MORE: Scotland's NHS ready to treat injured Gaza children, First Minister says Meanwhile, another new Westminster group this year – the Defence and Security Sectors Supporting Local Communities APPG – is also funded by the arms industry, with the ADS group – the industry body for the arms industry – funding its secretary to the tune of £16,501- 18,000, according to the register. The ADS group also contributes funding to the APPG for Aviation, Travel and Aerospace. (Image: Danny Lawson) Meanwhile, arms firms BAE Systems and Babcock International – alongside other organisations – pay for the secretary for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Apprenticeships to the tune of £54,001-£55,500. This type of lobbying and private firms sponsoring Westminster APPGs isn't new. For years, concerns have been raised that they can operate as a 'back door' for lobbyists. In 2021, the parliament's standards watchdog warned that a new Westminster lobbying scandal could be sparked by the actions of MPs sitting on these informal committees. Labour's Chris Bryant – who chaired the committee at the time and is now a minister in Starmer's government – said he feared some APPGs were being used as a "backdoor" for commercial interests. Anti-corruption campaign group Transparency International has also expressed concerns. Rose Whiffen, a senior research officer at Transparency International UK, told the Sunday National: "All-Party Parliamentary Groups serve an important function in bringing expertise to Parliament, and encouraging cross-party work. When defence companies can buy access to MPs and policymakers, it raises serious questions about whether APPGS are being exploited by private interests seeking to influence decision-makers. "To avoid the next major lobbying scandal, we need much greater openness and accountability in how APPGs operate, with clear rules preventing them from being used as backdoors for commercial influence." Meanwhile, Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman said: 'That Westminster has allowed an official group to form where multinational arms dealers and foreign governments like Israel are paying to access a large group of MPs and peers through the backdoor is frankly astonishing. 'If this represents the level of lobbying and ethics regulation in London, then it's no surprise the UK consistently ends up supplying weapons to tyrants and war criminals around the world. It shames Scotland to be associated with it.' The APPG for Defence Technology didn't respond to a request for comment.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Post Office Horizon scandal broke more than just the legal system
Going out on circuit around the country, inquiry chair Sir Wyn Williams heard sad stories from Ilfracombe to Inverness – each individual, but each with much in common. Postmasters' stories normally started well – in hope and new beginnings. I've had my eye on the shop for a while now. We'd like to operate our own branch. I think it's time to lay down roots in the community. We've been saving. This looks like a sound investment. Many of these men and women spoke of their plans to settle down with their families, settling what modest assets they had on the hope of securing a stable living in the heart of communities across the country – only for this very ordinary promise of living a very ordinary life to sour, and sour quickly. Security was the last thing these people got in return for their investment in the Post Office. READ MORE: Pat Kane: Scotland is heading back into a cycle of 'extraction without consent' The kit failed. Helplines gave them no help. Callers were told they were the only postmaster in the country whose Horizon terminals showed signs of bugging out. Phantom shortfalls in branch accounts accumulated, and inevitably, Post Office security goons came knocking. They came with audits, print-outs, sceptical faces, threats of dismissal, a change of locks and demands for full repayment under threat of prosecution. It seems fitting, therefore, for the first volume of the Post Office inquiry's findings to focus on the human impact of what went wrong, and the faltering and partial attempts by the British state to properly recognise and put right the terrible wrong this state company dealt to postmasters, their staff and their families over decades. In this volume, the judge focused on two key issues: the human impact and compensation. The human stories are now much better understood than they used to be, just a few years ago. It is still surprisingly difficult to pin down precisely how many people were affected by the Horizon scandal. Some were prosecuted, convicted and jailed for crimes they did not commit based on the failings in Fujitsu's system. Others found themselves in the dock but were acquitted – something like 50 to 60 people, by Sir Wyn's reckoning last week. Many others escaped the attentions of Post Office prosecutors, but instead, faced the sack. Postmasters whose contracts were terminated on the basis of their alleged dishonesty lost their shops, lost their business, and often as not, the mortgaged homes they relied on their livelihoods to service, becoming homeless. Many found themselves subject to other kinds of legal threats, facing civil court action demanding repayment of phantom debts they did not owe. Alan Bates tenaciously campaigned against the Post OfficeThis scandal was deadly. Sir Wyn concluded that at least 13 suicides were directly connected to Horizon shortfall allegations. Many postmasters disclosed suicidal ideation in the aftermath, which often involved huge financial and psychological stress as people sifted through the flotsam and jetsam of their lives, trying to keep themselves and their families afloat in the wake of the Post Office's allegations and sanctions. In some of the most powerful sections of last week's report, Sir Wyn reflects on the many 'genuinely moving accounts of the impact this had upon their immediate family'. Alan Bates, Jo Hamilton, Seema Misra – some of the most prominent postmasters are 'now well-known public figures'. But, he said, it is important to 'shine a light' on the significant number of other people who are 'far less well known but whose suffering has been acute'. Of Sir Wyn's 17 case studies, two focus on Scottish cases. The first is Susan Sinclair. She moved to Scotland in 1998 from America. In 2001, she began working as a court clerk in Ellen. Within months, she'd become postmistress of the branch nearby. Over the next year and a half, Horizon began to report shortfalls. A February 2003 audit disclosed an apparent shortfall of £10,700. Sinclair was interviewed by Post Office security goons, suspended and locked out of her branch. Later that month, she had her second encounter with PO investigators, who referred her case to the procurator fiscal, culminating in in her prosecution for embezzlement in 2004. She pled not guilty but was convicted by the sheriff. She ended up paying more than £10,700 to the Post Office. In September 2023, Ms Sinclair was the first person in Scotland to have her conviction quashed by the High Court. READ MORE: Keir Starmer's Donald Trump pandering proves the UK's global influence is fading The second Scottish case which Sir Wyn chose to highlight was Robert Thomson's. Rab has been quoted extensively in the Scottish media since interest in this story caught light. He was persuaded by his lawyer to plead guilty to charges of embezzlement from his Alloa Post Office. Following his conviction, there was significant adverse publicity in the local media. He was 'branded a thief'. Mr Thomson lived in a small rural community and the whole community knew of and believed in his conviction. This stigma was felt not only by Rab and his wife, but his two children, who were bullied at school in consequence of his conviction. This is one feature of this scandal that feels particularly troubling. Driven by its exaggerated suspicion of its own staff and misplaced faith in the infallibility of its accounting system, the Post Office did terrible things to its staff. But its false allegations also induced other people to act in ways which in retrospect do nobody any credit. Its suspicions were catching. In the Scottish human impact session in Glasgow, one postmaster – who eventually found himself being accused of being on the take after Horizon declared an apparent shortfall – talked about his sense of guilt at having accused and then dismissed two of his blameless staff after he concluded that if money was going missing and he wasn't responsible, one of them must have been responsible. 'I've apologised to them,' he said pointedly – but I was left with the distinct impression that this admission didn't entirely clear his conscience. Perhaps it shouldn't. I wonder how others in similar situations feel, confronted with the negative impact their own actions had on people affected. In Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has consistently depicted itself as a secondary victim of this scandal, whose good faith and trust was abused by the cynical manoeuvres of the Post Office. But even if you were misled, it was you who did the prosecuting, you who were the instrument of this injustice, you who remains – at least on some level – implicated. Local journalists who wrote up stories of postmasters being sent down may reasonably retort that they covered local court cases in good faith and in the public interest. Nobody would seriously suggest, I think, that they were not entitled to report who was convicted in local courts, particularly if the people involved had some community standing, particularly if they plead guilty. You wonder what all the local gossips and pharisees make of their behaviour now they know the targets of their whispering campaigns didn't deserve any of the hard words visited on them and their children. I suspect quite a few schoolyard bullies look back on their teenaged behaviour with regret. But it is difficult to escape the impression that it is was the whispered conversations in the supermarket, the pointed stares and being cut dead in the street by former friends which inflicted a significant part of the harm this scandal caused on people who found themselves caught up in it, their social identities spoiled by official suspicion and condemnation as crooks, thieves and embezzlers, exploiting public trust and helping themselves to the contents of your favourite granny's pension book. Even if you were deceived, even if you honestly believed these postmasters were guilty as charged, it was still you who stigmatised these people, still you who played an indispensable part of the great harm done to them, even with all this mitigation. READ MORE: Richard Murphy: Passing laws that destroy our freedoms is tyranny Continued denial, I suppose, is one response. Talking to one affected postmaster last year, she told me that she and her husband were still subject to a degree of community mistrust and hostility, even after ITV had broadcast its game-changing drama about the scandal in January 2024 and widespread community awareness spread that these people did nothing wrong. There's always a committed sceptic on hand to say 'no smoke without fire', determined in the teeth of all the evidence to believe some of these postmasters must have been guilty, and are only jumping on a convenient bandwagon to clear their convictions and get themselves some unmerited damages. But you wonder if even this reaction isn't its own kind of evasion. Dimly conscious of the monstrous self-reflection required by realising you've played a key part in what made this injustice go so deep down, all the way to the social nerve, it is easier to pretend you have no regrets, and nothing to answer for.
