INCREASE DEFENCE SPENDING TO 5% of GDP — Maintain our global influence 

Posted on by wilfredaspinall

Maintain our global influence 

INCREASE DEFENCE SPENDING TO 5% of GDP

Maintain our global influence 

Defence Spending: 

An Urgent National Security Priority

The international order is entering a period of increasing instability. Unless greater stability can be restored, there is a real risk that armed conflict could escalate through miscalculation or misunderstanding.

The United States continues to pursue its own strategic interests, fully aware that many Western nations no longer possess the military capability they once had. Europe can no longer assume that others will always guarantee its security.

The future of Ukraine remains central to European security and cannot be treated as a secondary issue. The outcome of that conflict could shape the security environment across Europe for many years to come.

The publication of the Government’s Strategic Defence Review presents an opportunity to reconsider Britain’s long-term defence priorities. The Government’s Defence Investment Plan (DIP) is not providing the funds needed and Parliament and all political parties should focus on one overriding responsibility

—the defence of the realm —. 

It has to address what the country needs and listen to well informed politicians and leading military personnel.

Whoever leads the Government in the years ahead must recognise that defence spending can no longer remain a secondary priority. Equally, the political Opposition has a responsibility to contribute constructively to this debate, recognising that national security should rise above party politics.

The United States is developing a “Golden Dome” missile defence system for North America. Europe should examine the establishment of a comparable integrated missile and drone defence shield to protect the continent against modern airborne threats. This would counter the menacing rhetoric from Russia.

European nations must now commit themselves to increasing defence expenditure to 5% of GDP. 

This should not remain an aspiration for the distant future but become a clear strategic objective supported by realistic implementation plans.

Russia continues to present a significant military challenge, not only through its war in Ukraine but also through increased naval and strategic activity in the Arctic and surrounding European waters. China is likewise expanding its strategic influence, particularly in the Arctic region and the Indo-Pacific.

These developments underline the need for Britain to strengthen its own defence capability.

The United Kingdom should substantially increase investment in Armed Forces personnel, equipment, cyber capability, missile defence and advanced technologies while expanding our indigenous sovereign defence industry.

Reliance upon the United States for Europe’s security can no longer be taken for granted. American strategic attention is increasingly focused upon China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific. Europe must therefore also assume greater responsibility for its own defence.

This issue cannot be deferred. 

Britain requires a comprehensive defence plan that provides balanced investment across all three Services while supporting technological innovation and expanding domestic manufacturing capacity.

Wherever practical, defence procurement should be directed towards British industry. This would strengthen national resilience, protect supply chains, create skilled employment and increase export opportunities.

The United Kingdom should continue to develop and manufacture naval vessels, submarines, military aircraft, helicopters, missiles, drones, electronic warfare systems and emerging technologies wherever sovereign capability can reasonably be maintained. This action will protect our indigenous defence industry and encourage young people to register for an employment career.

Britain’s nuclear deterrent remains fundamental to national security. Given the changing strategic environment, its long-term resilience and dependence on overseas support should continue to be kept under review.

NATO remains the cornerstone of European collective security and must continue to be strengthened.

Britain possesses one of the world’s leading defence industries. Continued investment would protect highly skilled employment while reinforcing the UK’s position in aerospace, naval engineering, defence technology and advanced manufacturing.

The defence sector already contributes substantially to the British economy through exports, research, innovation and employment. Greater investment would further stimulate economic growth while improving national security.

Our Armed Forces require continuous investment in new technology, artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, autonomous systems, advanced engineering and scientific research. Strong partnerships between the Armed Forces, universities and British industry should continue to be encouraged.

The armed forces and the defence industry also offers outstanding career opportunities for young men and women through apprenticeships, engineering, science, research, manufacturing and leadership. Increased investment would therefore benefit both national security and economic prosperity.

This is an example of utilising investment to encourage young people to get into work as against following the benefits programme in the welfare state.

Britain should remain cautious about becoming excessively dependent upon defence procurement arrangements that reduce sovereign industrial capability. International cooperation is valuable, but wherever possible the United Kingdom should retain critical national capabilities.

The first duty of Government is 

the defence of the realm.

We cannot defer this important expenditure. Some will mention savings from the long awaited Welfare State Review. That will take many years to achieve and must be undertaken not just in relation to funding but on the ideology to reduce the benefits system.

One possible means of supporting increased defence expenditure would be for the Bank of England to assist government financing during what many would regard as an exceptional national security challenge. During the Covid-19 pandemic, extraordinary monetary measures enabled the Government to respond rapidly to an unprecedented emergency. While any similar approach today would require careful consideration to preserve monetary stability and the Bank’s operational independence, exceptional circumstances may justify exceptional financial arrangements.

Waiting until the end of the current Parliament before significantly increasing defence expenditure will delay improvements for many years and smells of the never never land. 

It will send the wrong message to both foes and allies.

The U.K. should be in business to achieve 

the objective to spend 5% of GDP on defence, implementation should begin now rather than be postponed.

Defence spending should therefore be viewed not merely as public expenditure but as a long-term investment in Britain’s security, technological leadership, industrial strength, diplomatic prowess with employment at all levels (including encouraging your people to be involved). This would create economic resilience.

Conclusion

The United Kingdom faces an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world. National security is the foremost responsibility of Government. Britain needs a long-term strategy supported by sustained investment, modern Armed Forces, a strong domestic defence industry and the political determination to protect the nation.

Defence spending is an urgent 

national security priority.

The debate should now move 

from aspiration to URGRNT implementation.

Spend 5% of GDP Immediately 

Additional reading from ConHome in September 2025

Wilfred Aspinall: Why we must treat defence spending as an urgent national project

—————-

LABOUR GOVERNMENT EU RESET – Using Statutory Instruments to bypass UK parliamentary scrutiny

Posted on by wilfredaspinall

The Kings Speech at the formal State Opening of Parliament on 13 May – as was expected – introduced legislation to reset the relations with the EU.

As Keir Starmer stated last in his recent Monday speech it is his wish to have a closer and active relationship implying that by doing so all the UK’s economic and social problems will fade away. It might appear that both Wess Streeting and Andy Burnham have the same view.

They (Labour MP’s as a whole) are in cuckoo land and by making this statement gives the EU elite an open goal to make demands that will unpick the decision of the 2016 Referendum. Not only that but they are admitting that this Labour government have not got a clue what to do about the UK economy and the social problems currently confronting us here in the U.K. 

The Labour government only received 33% of those that voted in the 2024 GE yet they obtained a landslide number of MP.’s. Roughly 9.7m out of a 49m registered to vote which as a percentage

 of the electorate is about 20%. The turnout was 59.7%

Not really a democratic signal that allows them to think they can do anything without a decision being made by the public when it comes to alignment with EU legislation. 

In the 2016 Referendum there was turnout of 72.2% of the electorate of 46.5 million. Roughly 37.4% voted to leave; 34.7% voted to remain; 27.8% didn’t vote

What is even worse is the procedure to be used to enact this transfer of sovereignty to the EU. Any changes will be created not through direct legislation as we know it but by the use of Statutory Instruments controlled by the Labour government using its vast majority. These SI’s are “bagged” in the pouch behind the Speakers Chair (put on a published list) and unless there is an objection automatically adopted. No parliamentary scrutiny.

What have we come to – some might say a minority electoral dictatorship. This sort of manipulation of legislation is not what we deserve nor want to see. Even the HoC EU Scrutiny Select Committee was abolished

Instead the government should produce a Green Paper setting out what they are – undemocratically – intending to do in their  EU reset programme. Allow consultation which would require them to explain the process how EU legislation is created under European Law (the Napoleonic Code) and subject to the ruling of the European Court of Justice. Of course they will not do that. All part of the socialistic ideology to control the majority.

The Labour government does not have a mandate and instead will introduce procedure to enable new rules on standards for goods and services to be introduced to align with the EU. This action by clever stealth but will not create growth for the U.K.

This strategy will be voted through and the government will have their way. Out of the woodwork will emerge those besotted by the EU objectives of control through more EU regulation which is not going to bring about prosperity. Not growth nor aspiration. 

The EU objective is to control by a centralised state of order under European Law (the Napoleonic Code) where in effect unelected bureaucrats govern with politicians not needing to make decisions. Actually that sounds very socialistic.

The time has come when other political and public opinion should declare their position on whether alignment with EU standards together a wish to rejoin the EU can be tolerated.

What the U.K. needs to do is deregulate rules on a massive scale, get away from the EU principle of everything needs to be regulated – under legislative European Law – which is subject to interpretation and after thought.

We should deregulate for growth – a BIG BANG; become an open competitive economy. That would be breaking the past with the future. A momentum and vision towards growth

If we aspire to see growth in our economy we have to move away from the current regulatory culture and bring about a regime that allows business and our citizens to prosper without having to spend time and money fiddling around bureaucratic structures. I am not saying get rid of health and safety in both the production and consumer sales but use common sense and cut out that which is unnecessary. 

In turn abolish the Quango regime.

Outside the EU we can do this. Inside we cannot 

To give you a very simple example – do we need an EU Directive controlling “SOIL”. (Even one under UK legislation). This product is different all over the U.K. (and also in the EU). By having legislation, monitoring and control mechanisms, having farmers to fill in loads of bureaucratic reports does that represent a pathway to growth. In my view it does not. That applies to all sorts of practices where regulation stifles growth.

European Decisions, Directives and Regulations are composed by the European Commission ( the professional staff under Directorates) adopted by the College of Commissioners, scrutinised by the European Parliament (and other EU Institutions like the European Economic and Social Committee with one reading). The Council of Ministers working groups of civil servants from each member state. Finally by the Council of Ministers sitting in full session adopting the legislation by Qualified Majority. (This step does not scrutinise the legislation in detail but in principle agrees the final draft with amendments in conjunction with the European Parliament).

Decisions, Directives and Regulations once adopted are implemented in the member states (a Regulation without any UK parliamentary scrutiny (cannot be amended)

The 2016 Referendum changed all that and we should take all advantages to grow our economy outside the EU.

The 1985 EU Internal Market White Paper (which created the – single market) – was proposed by Lord Arthur Cockfield. I remember well asking him – deliberately – why Financial Services and Energy were not included. His answer was that the U.K. under Mrs Thatcher opposed such a move. (Lord Cockfield was appointed by Mrs T but there followed some disagreement).

The following year Nigel Lawson the U.K. Chancellor introduced the “Big Bang” deregulation of financial services in the U.K. This in effect created the City of London as the central hub for financial services in Europe. The financial services market requires flexibility. This must not change.

The EU – in particular the Commission – have tried many times to regulate all financial services at EU level but failed. In one attempt it was proposed in a high level Report by Baron Lamfallusy that all EU financial services legislation should be proposed under the regime of EU Regulations – which would mean full convergence without scrutiny in the member states. This did not happen because the U.K. had a veto.

The Commission efforts to converge energy policy also fell by the wayside although the U.K. were not in principle against. Other member states were suspicious of the U.K’s intentions.

Here we now have a Labour government with its Leader (and others) up against the ropes toadying to the EU and  backbench MP’s which fulfils the EU’s objective to control everything by EU legislation. We have potential leadership candidates saying we should rejoin – yet no mandate.

This is a very dangerous strategy. Today goods and services can be traded with the EU member states but the product must comply with EU standards and verified by the CE mark. The EU Commission have always wanted legislative control to activate their objective so that EU standards will become accepted worldwide. This has wider implications 

The U.K. would have to relinquish all Trade Agreements which is a stagnant position.

 The strategy by this government would be the start where u-turns would become natural; where at a later point the Euro might become the main world reserve currency and the U.K. required to join. Our monetary policy guided by the ECB

Both financial services and energy sectors are not really EU regulated and are traded in The City of London in trillions of  US dollars every day. To do this requires a flexible market. Not a fixed regulated market.

The EU is manic that they want control and will attempt to destroy the City of London dominance over financial services.

Imagine some obscure EU legislation introduced by the EU Commission, not understood by the politicians in the European Parliament – where the U.K. will not be represented – that changes the U.K. position on financial services and by Statutory Instrument the U.K. trading dominance gone

The idea that The Labour government can without a mandate, without detailed consultation – not asking the electorate in a Referendum but initiating an EU legislative reset by stealth which would erode the ability of the U.K. to have control is quite undemocratic.

The Labour government is undermining the democratic way in which we are governed using common law. To be clear this is a typical European way to introduce regulation and control

This Labour policy to quietly align policies with EU legislation will not aid economic growth and should be resisted 

<><><><><>

Additional Information 

I found myself appointed to the European Economic and Social Committee by Mrs T with a clear mandate whispered in my ear “probe everything – make a nuisance of yourself”. My position was soon under scrutiny and I was prevented from joining a Group in the European Economic and Social Committee. As the Groups nominated speakers during Plenary I found that at the first Session that although I wished to speak I would not be called. Well I won that argument by referring to the Institutions Constitution where every member appointed was independent and voluntarily joined a Group. This was an important result otherwise I would have neutered any future contribution to any debate. I was never challenged again and in fact my profile aided. At times I would get a “heckle” from some members chanting “Thatcher Man”. A lone voice can express a view and if logical listened to. I have many instances and procedures that I could recall. The process of influence can be made by working  the system by researching the detail even if a lone voice. 

I must say that whenever I sought personal contact with EU Commissioners or Commission officials I was never denied.

Into my second 4 year mandate I was joined by Neville Beale – a former member of the GLC for Finchley (Mrs T’s parliamentary seat).  Not only did we play the system but fed back information. It was a very interesting time but required careful liaison. The third 4 year mandate continued the same.

incentives to work

Posted on by wilfredaspinall

As we begin a New Year we should examine how Great Britain the 6th largest world economy is really equipped to sort out the mess we are in.

Please don’t say the politicians have the answers – many are inexperienced in life and work activity. They seem to rely on Think Tank policies where those too fall into the same pattern. Then there are the economists, who basically predict from data what is happening and making recommendations that in many cases fall foul of common sense. Again many of these so called economists have never had real time creative jobs

The Bank of England used to be the bankers BANK with the Governor having had a lifetime as a banker. Now they are all economists.

2026 has to be the beginning of a different economic model which because of the failures during the last 20-30 years cannot just continue with policies of business as usual “steady as we go”

There has been no growth in our economy, policies adopted to compensate and no encouragement for investment and job creation. Increasing public spending as the only way forward. 

We need a strategy – a plan to guide us all into prosperity. It can be done but serious changes will be required

Some of our Institutional structures are so decimated from throwing money at them which will not help as they are out of control in what they are supposed to be doing.

The NHS now just to big to provide for individuals needs. A massive workforce and management living just for today. With the funds provided how can it be acceptable that there are patients on trolleys in hospital corridors. It happens every year. Many NHS staff working part time including medical staff. A complete audit review is required

How comes local government are increasing council tax by a minimum of 5% yet the staff only want to work a 4 day week and the majority of that working at home. (Same applies to the civil service)

How comes the level of taxation is so high. The tax thresholds not keeping pace with rising wages. No incentive to work to get promotion and explore new work patterns 

How comes we have people on benefits that could be employed especially when pay on benefits exceeds pay in work. This has become a nightmare not just for now but for the future

How comes that this modern economic style creates no incentive to work full time.

We simply cannot go on with business as usual

Economic pain will result and unemployment will rise, our whole society will become unproductive.

We have to renew our economic thinking and get GB working

HERE WE GO AGAIN

In the 1970’s the then Labour (socialistic ideology) government introduced fiscal restraint on middle and higher paid earners; managers, professionals and other defined staff. This resulted in the “brain drain”. Many got jobs overseas to try and avoid high taxation. Many couldn’t as they  were totally committed in the U.K. 

(This is happening again)

The Labour government also created employment rules – following on from the document “In Place of Strife” sponsored by the Rt Hon Barbara Castle MP. They also introduced the concept of unelected quango organisations to do the thinking for them

Result we had to be bailed out by the IMF

Some of us created an organisation to try and counter this policy bringing together Registered representational bodies totalling 1.5m managerial, professional and staff. That organisation existed until the mid 1990’s and assisted in presenting fiscal, pension etc and welfare opinions to politicians, ministers and Government.

Here we are in the mid 2020’s with a government made up of socialistic wealth distribution ideologists. Not understanding that in a modern economy growth is required and that means an economic strategy which creates incentive.

We currently Tax the middle and higher earners who attempt to mitigate that ideology by only working part time and the exchequer income falls which means in a market economy those that really suffer are the low paid resulting in aspiration destroyed.

I remind the reader that aspiration applies to ALL workers

We need an economy where as many people work full time to ensure that the market economy works for everybody.

We have a Welfare State unmanageable with no clear strategy to reduce the number of claimants. In fact just the opposite. There is no doubt many deserving of benefits but not +/- 10m

The U.K. market economy relies on funds circulating round. We need to break the part time, four day week and working from home approach. Our economy continues to flat line and we need reality into the whole fabric of pay to encourage work. 

The tax thresholds are frozen until 2031 which means that those on middle and high incomes have no incentive to work full time. Pensioners and even the low paid caught in this fiscal drag trap resulting in  lower exchequer revenue. Lower paid employees ceasing to feel satisfied if they can have more on welfare benefits.

The U.K. market economy requires flexibility. If the exchequer revenue from the middle and upper earners goes down and there is no resultant increase in consumer spending. If the small business just working within a sustainable margin has to register for VAT, put up their prices by 20%, NIC increased with the effect that they stop using additional employees and even lay off existing staff.

The result is that the market economy is under stress.

The lower paid jobs cease to exist and the middle and high earners either leave the country or reduce their income (part time) and the exchequer income falls. Result government debt goes up

Overall not a good result and the financial markets downgrade and borrowing gets more expensive. We slip from being the 6th largest world economy perhaps to 7th or 8th. Interest charges on debt increases

We turn to the IMF for a bailout

So what is the solution

1. Review the tax thresholds to encourage and incentivise people to be more productive. Earn more, pay their taxes,  have more in their pockets resulting in higher consumer spending 

2. Initiate an overhaul of the tax system. Make it simpler, advance the small state ideology, increase funds for people to spend as they wish. 

3. Look at potential for a new system such as introducing a flat rate, the potential to have a state tax and a local tax (devolution costs of certain aspects such as social care in the community, breaking up specific NHS activity bringing in more democratic local accountability. 

4. Introduce an equitable pension scheme for all – outside the exchequer balance sheet under an actuarial structure

5. Encourage small businesses by increasing the VAT threshold to £150k and eventually scrapping the NIC altogether but immediately reducing the employers contribution

6. Creating an overall ideology that work pays and increasing consumer spending as a result of lower taxes. This in turn would initiate a strategy of new jobs (some initially below the tax threshold but aiming for better productivity to increase their pay. (In many ways the minimum wage has been a disincentive for advancement and perhaps we should return to the philosophy of the market rate)

7. Initiate a radical review of all welfare state spending  bringing the basic thinking back to benefits only used as a safety net.

8. Taking steps to scrap all regulations that delay or hamper growth and scrap the unelected organisations that control them. Scrap the national Quango organisations

9. Build more houses, use our expertise to fast track and build useful  – education, rail, road, airport and health infrastructure. Scrap the regulations, build quicker see the trade grow

10. Exploit our expertise to create indigenous energy production using gas and oil exploration, new nuclear power plants and country wide SMR’s (small modular reactors), advance all renewable energy production (solar, wind, etc). Reduce energy prices

11. Examine our UK  financial services and potential tax opportunities on the world scene to take advantage of this sectors expertise to attract inward investment based on our position outside the EU.

12. Adopt a policy of prosperity for all our citizens for a happier and more fruitful existence 

Wilfred Aspinall is an independent strategy adviser. Former Chairman of the Forum in the European Parliament for Construction and Energy Users

Former Member of the European Economic and Social Committee 

Former Executive Director of the MPG (managerial and professional liaison group)