Latest news with #post-WWII
IOL News
02-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
NATO's Defence Spending: Washington's Political Will Trumps Brussels' Consensus Diplomacy
US President Donald Trump (C) flanked by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth (L) and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a press conference during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in The Hague on June 25, 2025. Image: AFP Clyde N.S. Ramalaine The June 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague produced a landmark decision: member states, except for Spain, agreed to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. This bold move, which marks a significant departure from the long-standing 2% benchmark agreed at the 2014 Wales Summit, represents more than a fiscal adjustment; it signals a seismic shift in the alliance's strategic orientation. At the heart of this recalibration is the reasserted influence of U.S. President Donald Trump, whose longstanding critiques of NATO burden-sharing have now crystallised into formal policy. This article explores the rationale, implications, and geopolitical consequences of NATO's spending leap, assessing whether this shift reflects authentic alliance consensus or a recalibration driven by American political will. When NATO's 32 member states gathered in The Hague for the June 2025 summit, few anticipated the alliance would break with over a decade of precedent. But they did, agreeing to a bold, controversial, and for some, economically staggering commitment: to spend 5% of their national GDP on defence by 2035. However, NATO did not shift this policy direction out of its own conviction or internal consensus; rather, it was compelled to do so, with U.S. President Donald Trump standing at the heart of this strategic pivot, having since his first stint advocated for greater burden-sharing among member states. Trump's framing was blunt: 'Why should the U.S. keep subsidising European security when Europe can afford to pay?' In many ways, this new 5% target represents the realisation of Trump's foreign policy worldview: as it relates to NATO, a five tenet blend of transactional diplomacy, fiscal pressure, nationalist recalibration, readiness and modernisation, and geopolitical deterrence. Trump's foreign policy is often described as transactional, meaning it treats international alliances less as values-based partnerships and more as quid pro quo arrangements. NATO, in this view, is not a sacred pillar of post-WWII order but a cost-benefit enterprise. Applied politically, fiscal pressure can describe the tactic of urging or coercing other member states to increase their defence budgets to meet alliance commitments, such as Trump urging NATO allies to spend 5% of GDP. The implicit threat: fail to meet spending demands, and U.S. protection may no longer be guaranteed. Under this logic, NATO is only worthwhile if the U.S. is not carrying a disproportionate share of the financial burden. Trump repeatedly framed the alliance as an economic deal, where allies were "delinquent" in their obligations. He demanded that U.S. support be conditional on financial commitments, reducing mutual defence to a pay-to-play system. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ This further aligns with Trump's broader nationalist recalibration "America First" doctrine. This interpretation is reinforced by Trump's domestic base, which is increasingly wary of foreign entanglements. According to analysis from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the U.S. accounted for roughly 68.7% of total NATO military spending in 2023, meaning that nearly seven in ten dollars spent by NATO members were American. With the U.S. contributing nearly 70% of NATO's total defence spending, Trump argued the arrangement was fiscally unjust. Requiring allies to spend more would redistribute responsibility and ease pressure on U.S. taxpayers. By pushing for the 2% target, and now 5%, Trump used fiscal pressure to compel policy alignment. His administration hinted that failure to meet the spending floor could lead to reduced U.S. commitment, threatening the alliance's coherence. Another component of Trump's rationale lies in readiness and modernisation. Higher spending is linked to greater military capability. Trump's advisers highlighted ageing equipment, low deployability, and interoperability challenges as evidence that current budgets were insufficient. NATO states lacked modern infrastructure, weaponry, and rapid deployment capacity. Chronic incompatibility in systems and doctrines undermined joint operations. The 5% target is not merely a financial benchmark but a demand for measurable improvements: mobile, modern, integrated forces ready for cyber warfare, space militarisation, and asymmetric threats. Trump saw increased spending as essential to transforming NATO into a technologically dominant and operationally agile force. The 5% target also serves a function of geopolitical deterrence. Trump argued that a wealthier, well-armed NATO would send a strong message to adversaries like Russia and China about the alliance's resolve. Defence spending becomes a litmus test of political will. Trump emphasised that deterrence is achieved not through communiqués but through visible military capability. By urging allies to raise spending, he sought to eliminate ambiguity that adversaries might exploit, especially in light of Russian aggression and China's assertiveness. The outcome of the Hague Summit marks an undeniable strategic win for Trump, validating his ideology for a reshaped NATO. What was once dismissed as provocative rhetoric is now policy. The agreement to move toward 5% signals not just a funding shift, but a transformation in the alliance's operational ethos. Trump hailed it as a "monumental win for the United States and the free world." This also underscores a broader realignment: NATO's direction is now synchronised with Washington's political will rather than Brussels' consensus-building. The U.S. model is assertive and top-down, driven by strategic imperatives. Brussels, by contrast, has favoured inclusive, deliberative processes. The Hague Summit reflects a power shift, where American momentum overrides European caution, reconfiguring NATO into a more hierarchical, pressure-sensitive alliance. Trump's assertiveness demonstrated that America is not only NATO's military backbone but also its ideological compass. The 5% target reflects Trump's insistence on fairness and strategic necessity. Under his leadership, burden-sharing has become a requirement, not a polite suggestion. In this context, Trump is not merely influencing NATO; he is directing it. He has repositioned the U.S. as the alliance's strategic lodestar, with the 5% threshold symbolising his imprint on NATO's long-term trajectory. Why then did the majority of NATO states agree to such an ambitious spending goal? A plausible argument is that European powers accepted the 5% benchmark not out of ideological alignment with Trump, but to ensure continued U.S. commitment to NATO—and, crucially, to Ukraine and their security. Given Trump's scepticism towards multilateral institutions and his past threats to withdraw from NATO, European leaders may have regarded the target as a calculated concession to keep the U.S. engaged. It constitutes a form of strategic appeasement: if meeting Trump's demands secures American support, then it is a price worth paying. Compounding this urgency is the perception, real or manufactured, of a renewed Russian threat. Remarks by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who recently referred to EU leaders as 'Brusselian cockroaches,' signal rhetorical escalation and reinforce NATO's view of Russia as an enduring adversary. Whether grounded in imminent threat assessments or strategic messaging, this antagonism sustains European anxiety and justifies increased military expenditure as a deterrent and necessity. By meeting Trump's demands, European leaders also give him political cover to maintain U.S. support for Ukraine's war effort. In this light, the 5% commitment becomes a tool to secure U.S. leadership for Europe's collective security. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's effusive praise of Trump reinforces this reading. His remarks lauding Trump's 'decisive action in Iran' and describing him as a 'man of peace' who is also willing to use force appeared more choreographed than spontaneous. Given NATO's growing reliance on U.S. leadership, Rutte's comments may have been a tactical gesture—an effort to affirm Trump's primacy while ensuring his continued commitment without conceding institutional authority. This shift could also enable strategic rebalancing. As Europe assumes more of the defence burden, the U.S. can reallocate resources to the Indo-Pacific, where China's rise poses a growing challenge. A more self-sufficient Europe gives Washington the bandwidth to pursue its global agenda while challenging perceptions of NATO as U.S.-dependent. With more skin in the game, Europe may gain strategic credibility and a stronger voice within the alliance. Nonetheless, challenges remain. Public sentiment in Europe remains cautious about large-scale military expansion. Polls in Germany, France, and Spain indicate a preference for diplomacy over deterrence. The political cost of sustaining 5% defence spending may prove substantial. If NATO states deliver, the Hague Summit may be remembered as the dawn of a fortified, globally relevant alliance. If not, it risks becoming another episode in summit theatre—where leaders agree in principle, delay in practice, and dilute in execution. For Trump, however, the optics are already favourable. He has altered how NATO operates, and with the 5% pledge, he has inscribed his foreign policy legacy into the alliance's future.
Euronews
01-07-2025
- Business
- Euronews
Denmark assumes EU presidency in stormy times. Here's what to expect
Denmark has officially taken over the six-month rotating presidency of the EU Council, with two overarching priorities: security and competitiveness. The task is usually a tough challenge, but it will be more formidable as a result of the extreme uncertainty and volatility that the European Union faces today. "Europe is at a defining moment in time," Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said in her welcome message. "The world that secured our freedom and made us prosper can no longer be taken for granted." The country inherits from Poland the unenviable title of "honest broker": the chief arbiter among the other 26 member states, moderating complex and fraught debates, drafting tortuous compromises and sitting face-to-face with the European Parliament to negotiate legislation. For the Danes, this marks the eighth time they assume the rotating chairmanship. Their reputation in Brussels as pragmatic, efficient and cool-headed operators bodes well for navigating the sharp, often intractable divisions between capitals. Here's what you need to know about the Danish presidency. The T word Whether the Danish presidency runs smoothly or descends into chaos might not depend on Brussels but on a city that is more than 6,000 kilometres away. Donald Trump's return to Washington, DC has deeply rattled Europeans, forcing them into a reactive posturing to protect themselves against the shockwaves unleashed by the mercurial president. Take trade, where Trump is attempting to unilaterally redesign the post-WWII economic order with sweeping, across-the-board tariffs. The European Commission still hopes a preliminary deal can be achieved with the White House before the 9 July deadline to avoid the worst-case scenario of a 50% tariff. But if the agreement falls below expectations – or if there is no agreement at all – the executive is preparing to hit back with retaliatory tariffs against American-made products. As the presidency, Denmark will be tasked with ensuring the 27 act as one and close ranks behind the Commission. It is doubtless an out-of-character role: the country is a traditional advocate of free and open markets. Exports account for almost 70% of its GDP, with iconic brands like Lego, Ozempic and Carlsberg sold worldwide. But for Denmark, Trump does not only represent a trade irritant but also an existential threat: the US president has refused to rule out using military force or economic coercion to seize Greenland, the semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. Elusive consensus Denmark comes into the presidency at a time when the EU feels besieged by countless international crises, starting with the one closer to home: Russia's war on Ukraine. From the start of the invasion, Denmark has been a vocal supporter of Ukraine, becoming one of the largest donors of military aid. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Denmark has individually pledged €8.60 billion in weapons and ammunition, surpassing bigger countries like France, Italy, Spain and Poland. The Danish presidency is eager to ramp up these deliveries at the EU level and make up for the diminishing aid provided by the Trump administration. At the same time, it is determined to tighten the screws on the Kremlin to cripple its war machine. Here, the presidency is off to a rocky start: Slovakia has vetoed the 18th package of sanctions over an unrelated dispute about the phase-out of Russian fossil fuels. Prime Minister Robert Fico has asked for financial "compensation", and Brussels seems to have little space left in its strained budget to accommodate the sudden request. Denmark will contend with yet another veto in another top priority: enlargement, which the official programme defines as a "geopolitical necessity". Hungary continues to block the opening of negotiating clusters with Ukraine, despite the Commission concluding the war-battered country has met all the criteria to kick-start the talks. Last week, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán showed up at the EU summit with the results of a controversial national consultation to justify his solitary veto. The impasse is so entrenched that officials and diplomats have begun mulling the idea of decoupling Moldova from Ukraine to allow the former to progress while the latter awaits. Frugal no more Vladimir Putin could be credited for prompting one of the most spectacular political reinventions in the bloc's recent history. Back in 2020, Mette Frederiksen joined a small group of like-minded leaders to advocate fiscal discipline and cautious spending in the next multi-annual budget, which was then paired with the history-making COVID-19 recovery fund. The Frugal Four was thus born: Denmark, together with the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden, stood up against the expansionary vision espoused by France and Southern Europe. Fast forward five years, and Frederiksen has switched sides. "As Danes, we will always be tough in the negotiations on the budget," she said last month. "But being a part of the Frugal Four is no longer the right place for us." In her view, Russia's war on Ukraine has irreversibly transformed the bloc's financial equation and put rearmament above "all other priorities and all other principles". If the EU fails to develop the capabilities to defend itself, "then it's game over", she warned. Frederiksen is not alone in her assessment. Ursula von der Leyen has also espoused a security-first mindset and is expected to put defence spending at the core of the next multi-annual budget (2028-2034), which she will present before the summer break. This means Denmark will be able to commence the debate on the proposed budget, take the temperature among member states and identify the first fracture lines. Germany, for example, has already ruled out common borrowing on a permanent basis. "The categories we've had in the past still exist, so the frugals versus the rest. But the groupings are changing, who is part of the frugals is changing," says Janis Emmanouilidis, deputy chief executive at the European Policy Centre (EPC). "A lot will depend on other member states (like Denmark) putting pressure on others who are still very much coming from a frugal approach." Red vs green Cutting red tape has become the dominating trend in Brussels. The Commission's economic agenda is head-on focused on simplifying regulation, reducing administrative burden and making it easier for companies and investors to do business. For many leaders, this big push should come at the expense of the Green Deal. Germany's Friedrich Merz, Italy's Giorgia Meloni and Poland's Donald Tusk are among those openly calling for certain environmental laws to be outright repealed. Denmark disagrees with this approach and believes the green transition can go hand-in-hand with a competitive economy, drive prosperity and create high-quality jobs. The argument is hardly surprising: the Nordic country has managed to foster growth and innovation while rapidly slashing greenhouse gas emissions and deploying renewable energy, most notably offshore wind farms, to replace imported fossil fuels. As a declaration of intent, Frederiksen has invited the College of Commissioners to visit the Laura Maersk, the world's first container ship capable of sailing on green methanol. But with the bloc tilted to the right and the backlash against the Green Deal intensifying by the day, the presidency might soon find itself in a shrinking minority. Going Danish There is one policy area in which Denmark finds itself right in the mainstream: migration. Thanks to its decades-long opt-out clause from EU migration rules, the country has been able to deviate from the norm and adopt heavily restrictive measures to curb the number of asylum seekers and maintain a relatively homogenous population. Initially controversial, the so-called "Danish model" has become increasingly popular across the bloc, earning praise from leaders and attention from policy-makers. "What Denmark has achieved in recent years is truly exemplary, and together we are also moving towards new and stricter asylum rules in the European Union," Merz said recently. The Commission has dropped its long-standing hesitations and is now fully on board with exploring "innovative solutions" to manage irregular migration, including the construction of deportation centres in faraway countries to transfer rejected applicants. Copenhagen feels vindicated and is keen to use its presidency to advance the process, even if outsourcing remains plagued with logistical, financial and legal questions. "Denmark's model of migration control is being advertised as the gold standard and worthy of imitation because it aims to deter asylum-seekers from coming," said Céline Mias, EU director at the Danish Refugee Council (DRC). "Political winds can shift, but our values and obligations to the rule of law and asylum seekers and refugees must not."
Daily Mirror
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mirror
The world's safest countries to live in - amid rising fears of World War Three
The relentless onslaught of global events from war in Europe to a wider conflict emerging in the Middle East can make it feel like few places on Earth are safe - but they are out there War in Europe, escalating tensions in the Middle East and a reshaping of the post-WWII global order has sparked fears of nuclear war that could end life as we know it, with many wondering what countries are the safest in an increasingly dangerous world. Russia's war in Ukraine shattered decades of peace in Europe with the UK and allies scrambling to increase defence spending to deter Moscow from further westward expansion. The missiles volleys and air strike exchange between Iran and Israel further highlighted the fragile situation in the Middle East after Tehran was accused of attempting to manufacture enough uranium to make nuclear weapons. Unsurprisingly, an increasingly dangerous world has shifted leaders onto a war footing with Keir Starmer now looking to purchase at least 12 F-35 stealth bombers to bolster Britain's nuclear deterrence. But across the Atlantic, Americans also fear an emerging conflict with a July 2024 YouGov poll finding last year that 62 per cent of 36,421 surveyed US adults respondents believed a major war would happen "within the next 10 years." A bleak outlook has no doubt led many people to ponder which countries are the safest in the world, particularly amid fears of a major war. Here are the 10 safest countries in the world, according to the Global Peace Index which measures the relative position of nations based on their apparent levels of peacefulness. 10: Finland The Nordic country of Finland made the top 10 with an overall score of 1.42 on a scale of 1 to 5, with the lower a score indicating the more peaceful the country. Despite being on Russia's doorstep, the country earned its ranking thanks to a relatively low homicide rate, low political terror scale, low political instability and low violent crime rates. But Finland was denied a higher ranking due to its comparatively high military expenditure, given its proximity to an increasingly aggressive Russia. This was also a major factor in not giving Finland a lower score as its relations with Russia were considered not peaceful, as Moscow may view its former duchy as ripe for territorial expansion. 9: Slovenia Slovenia is a small country nestled between regional the European regional powers of Italy, Austria and Hungary. The Global Peace Index gave the former Yugoslavia member state a score of 1.409 based on its low criminality, homicide rate, political instability as well as its overall safety and security. Following a brief conflict during the collapse of Yugoslavia, Slovenia was recognised as an independent nation and has been a member of the European Union since 1992. It has gone on to have a relatively high-income economy with multiple sectors. 8: Denmark Denmark has cultivated a progressive image over the decades and has been named on several occasions as the happiest country on Earth with one of the most liveable capital cities, in Copenhagen. The Scandinavian country earned a score of 1.393 due to low criminality, homicide rates and political instability. It was not all praise from the index though, with the organisation giving it higher marks for its large number of weapons imports and experts as well as its relations with neighbouring countries. 7: Portugal Portugal might be known as a lovely holiday option for many Brits but it was also praised on the peace index for relatively low crime rates, terrorism impact and its overall safety and security. The Iberian country was awarded a score of 1.371 due to its overall safety. But a medium level police rate and a comparatively higher political terror scale compared to other top 10 nations saw it fail to find a higher place on the list. 6: Singapore The Southeast Asian city state of Singapore is the first country to make the list that is outside Europe. The tiny nation underwent rapid economic advancement after WW2 and is considered to be a major power in relation to its size and drew favourable remarks from British politicians who wanted to make the UK post-Brexit appear more like the country in regards to its economy. It landed a score of 1.357 on the Global Peace Index thanks to a low crime rate, access to firearms as well as its safety and security. But Singapore earned the highest marks, which are viewed as less peaceful, for its weapons imports and higher points for its military expenditure and militarisation. Joint 4: Austria Austria was given a score of 1.29 in the index due to low perceptions of criminality, a low crime rate and low impacts from terrorism. The country did get higher scores for its police rate and the population's access to firearms. Joint 4: Switzerland Switzerland has long prided its neutral stance in regard to global affairs and is viewed as one of the safest places in the world due to this principle. The country also scored 1.29 on the index due to a low crime rate, political violence and cordial relations with neighbours. The landlocked country did earn higher scores for its police rate, access to small arms and weapons exports. 3: New Zealand The first, and only country, to make the list from Oceania is New Zealand. Despite having endured one of the deadliest terror attacks in recent history in 2019, the country has earned a reputation of being a safe country. The Global Peace Index gave New Zealand a score of 1.28 due to a low crime and homicide rate as well as political violence. It did earn higher scores due to a higher level of weapons imports and perceptions of crime. 2: Ireland Despite recent tensions around the rate of immigration and protests around it the country has earned its spot on the index with a score of 1.26. While perceptions of criminality and the police rate remain high, the incarceration and homicide rate in Ireland is relatively low. Access to firearms remains does remain higher than it does with other nations on the list but low terrorism fears and good relations with neighbours see it remain in the second spot. 1: Iceland It is no surprise that an island far away from most countries is considered one of the safest places on Earth, particularly amid fears of a nuclear war. Iceland holds an enviable score of 1.10 on the index and has been widely praised for its approach to egalitarianism as well as equality for its citizens. The country also benefits from a incredibly low crime rate, access to firearms and political violence. General perceptions among the country's citizens is that is is a safe place to live.
Daily Mirror
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mirror
Furious Donald Trump blasts 'scum' in blistering remarks ahead of NATO meeting
A fuming Donald Trump has branded the media "scum" in a rambling tirade after arriving in the Netherlands for crunch NATO talks. Mr Trump hit out at CNN and The New York Times, branding both as "scum" after they published leaked reports claiming that US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites did not destroy them fully. The leaked reports contradicts Mr Trump who said the sites had been "totally obliterated." "I believe it was total obliteration, I believe they didn't have a chance to get anything out because we acted fast," Mr Trump said of the strikes. "It's hard to remove that kind of material - very hard and very dangerous." The US President laid into the media just hours after he dropped an expletive live on TV, saying Iran and Israel "don't know what the f*** they're doing" as both countries hammered each other with missile and air raid attacks. Mr Trump arrived at the Hague, in the Netherlands, today and is expected to pressure NATO members to commit to his new interpretation of the post-WWII defensive alliance. The President recently cast doubt on Washington's commitment to NATO's Article 5 that states all member states will come to the defence of an ally if it is attacked. Mr Trump told reporters en route to the Netherlands the US' commitment to the principle "depends on your definition." He added: "There's numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right? But I'm committed to being their friends." When pressed to clarify what he meant, Mr Trump said he was "committed to saving lives," although he did not expand on the point."
Metro
20-06-2025
- Business
- Metro
This is the best London neighbourhood to be LGBTQ+ in 2025
For LGBTQ+ people, picking a place to live isn't just about balancing budgets and commuting needs. We also need to consider our safety, and how open the area is to accommodating queer and trans people. Just south of the River Thames, the London borough of Lambeth has one of the highest LGBTQ+ populations in the country – and it's bustling with queer spaces. According to the latest Census, 8.3% of Lambeth's residents are LGBTQ+, while neighbouring Southwark rests at 8.1%. The only other area to trump both was the City of London, at 10.3%. Of the top 10 local authorities with the highest number of LGBTQ+ residents, seven were in London, while Brighton and Hove unsurprisingly took home the prize as the gayest neighbourhood in England and Wales at 10.7%. Contrary to popular belief, though, not everywhere in London is always sparkles and glitter. Safety remains an issue, as one in five LGBTQ+ people have experienced hate crime on TfL services, while queer venues remain under threat. Between 2006 and 2022, more than half of London's LGBTQ+ spaces closed, with numbers falling from 125 to just 50. With that in mind, it's more important than ever that LGBTQ+ people feel safe in their living situation – whether that means access to a queer-friendly yoga session, or a gay bar to dance the night away. You can access completely fee-free mortgage advice with London & Country (L&C) Mortgages, a partner of Metro. Customers benefit from: – Award winning service from the UK's leading mortgage broker – Expert advisors on hand 7 days a week – Access to 1000s of mortgage deals from across the market Unlike many mortgage brokers, L&C won't charge you a fee for their advice. Find out how much you could borrow online Mortgage service provided by London & Country Mortgages (L&C), which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (registered number: 143002). The FCA does not regulate most Buy to Let mortgages. Your home or property may be repossessed if you do not keep up repayments on your mortgage. From Vauxhall to Brixton (AKA, the home of queer pop festival Mighty Hoopla), there's so much in Lambeth enticing queer and trans people to the area. For starters, there's the iconic Royal Vauxhall Tavern. Hailed as the 'beating heart of Vauxhall,' it's the oldest surviving queer venue in South London – a title which has earned it Grade II-listed status. Built between 1860 and 1862, drag shows were reportedly held there as early as the post-WWII years as servicemen returned from war. Throughout the 1980s, Lily Savage (Paul O'Grady's drag persona) had a regular show there, taking to the stage four times a week for eight years – long before The Lily Savage Show first aired in 1997. Gay icon Princess Diana was also known to frequent the beloved RVT and was once smuggled into the venue by Freddie Mercury and Kenny Everett. They dolled her up in men's clothes, and no one batted an eyelid. These days, the RVT channels the spirit of Pride 365 days a year, with regular performances from the likes of David Hoyle and Myra DuBois. Also in Vauxhall, LGBTQ+ bar and club Eagle serves up tipples aplenty in their beer garden, and hosts residents Horse Meat Disco every Sunday. Beats the end of the weekend scaries, right? Serving up drag and cabaret to Lambeth locals since it first threw open its doors in 1981, the Two Brewers in Clapham is still open seven days a week. It's not just wall-to-wall partying either: there are also sober-friendly events, including Sheila Simmonds' famous Busy Lady Bingo and RuPaul's Drag Race UK live streamings. Just around the corner in the borough of Southwark, there's also the London LGBTQ+ Community Centre, a not-for-profit space for queer and trans people that hosts everything from LGBTQ+ ballet to co-working spaces, meditation and writing clubs. June might mark Pride Month, but the reality is that LGBTQ+ people still face issues accessing housing. Research from Stonewall shows that almost one in five LGBTQ+ people have experienced homelessness; these statistics increase to 25% of all trans people. The majority of these cases are caused by direct rejection from families over their LGBTQ+ identity, too, as 77% of people surveyed by akt said that 'family rejection, abuse or being asked to leave home' was the cause of their homelessness. Shortly before becoming homeless, more than 50% had their family members force them to stop expressing their LGBTQ+ identity, figures which rise to 64% for trans people and 55% for disabled people. More Trending The University of Stirling also finds that LGBTQ+ people have poorer housing outcomes than their straight and cis counterparts, too. Gay, lesbian and bisexual people specifically are less likely to own their own homes, while throughout the 1980s and 1990s, there were instances of gay and bisexual men having their mortgage applications refused because of the stigma tied to the HIV/AIDS crisis. View More » So, we've still got a long way to go to carve out safe spaces for LGBTQ+ people – not just in housing and in London, but everywhere. Do you have a story to share? Get in touch by emailing MetroLifestyleTeam@ MORE: Widow fined more than £1,000 by parking wardens after council delays Blue Badge renewal MORE: I can be myself in the UK – but now I can't go home MORE: Map reveals UK cheating hotspot where the most people have been unfaithful
