Sir Keir Starmer yesterday 'Everything but well -known' Labor's Defense expenditure would be used to finance the giveaway action of Chagos Islands, was claimed last night.
Only one day after announcing the large increase in the military budget, the prime minister refused to exclude part of the money to Mauritius.
Labor is preparing to hand over the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but the US military base on Diego Garcia to rent a reported cost of almost £ 9 billion during the 99-year term of the agreement.
On Tuesday, the prime minister announced that the government will meet its manifestring obligation to increase military expenditure to 2.5 percent of GDP two years earlier.
Sir Keir told MPs yesterday that the boost of £ 6 billion a year by 2027 is for 'our capacities for defense and security in Europe'.
But he then described the deal that was negotiated with Mauritius as 'extremely important for our safety'.
Tory -leader Kemi Badenoch accused Sir Keir 'anything but to PMQs that the costs of surrendering the Chagos Islands will come from the Defense Budget'.
She added: 'Labor should not give a cent from Defense -in -case money to finance this shady deal. National interest first. No IFS or Buts. '
The Prime Minister announced that the government will increase military expenditure to 2.5 percent of GDP
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused Sir Keir of surrendering the Chagos Islands will come from the defense budget '
Last night Sir Keir would be landed in Washington DC for Crunch interviews with US President Donald Trump on defense, but it is also expected to discuss the Chagos deal.
A number of American Republicans and allies from Mr. Trump have previously attacked the deal.
Mrs Badenoch put Sir Keir under pressure on the Chagos deal during a heated collision on the prime minister's questions yesterday yesterday [WEDS].
It came after the Minister of Defense John Healey was not exclusively whether there was possible financing for the agreement with the new defense budget.
Mrs Badenoch asked the prime minister to “confirm to the house that none of the defense raises payments for his Chagos deal?”.
But Sir Keir refused to exclude it and said that the 'extra expenses I have announced [on Tuesday] Is for our ability for defense and safety in Europe '.
He added: 'The Chagos deal is extremely important for our security, for our security. The US looks at it. If it is completed, I will place it in front of the house with the costs. '
After PMQs, Mrs Badenoch's spokesperson said that it was 'sitting on the government as quickly as possible to come and explain where the money comes from' for the Chagos deal.
Labor is preparing to hand over the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but the US military basis of the US on Diego Garcia (photo).
He also indicated that Mr Trump should block the deal if it is bad. Asked how long the US president should last to consider the agreement, the spokesperson replied: “I didn't see the deal, so I don't know how long, but I assume he did that, and hopefully he will stop.”
Last night David Lammy said that the Chagos deal will not continue without the support of Mr. Trump.
Speaking with ITV's Peston, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said: “If President Trump does not like the deal, the deal will not continue.
“The reason for this is because we have a shared military and intelligence interest at the United States, and of course they have to be happy with the deal, or there is no deal.”
The leader of the Prime Minister and Tory also clashed the value of the increase in the defense, in which Mrs Badenoch accused the prime minister of her 'patronizing'.
She pushed the prime minister on his claim that the extra defense spending would amount to £ 13.4 billion, after the Minister of Defense John Healey suggested that the real terms increase from the defense expenditure would be slightly more than £ 6 billion on the year. “
Sir Keir said that Mrs Badenoch 'went through the same question time and time again' and added: 'If you take the financial year this year and then take the financial year for 2027/28, the difference between the two is £ 13..4 billion.
“That's the same answer. If you ask again, I will give the same answer. '
The military base of Diego Garcia on the Chagos Islands, the location of a joint military facility of the United Kingdom and the United States
The Tory leader hit back: “Someone must tell the prime minister that patronizing is not a replacement for answering questions.”
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) belonged to the critics of the amounts of the government and accused ministers of playing 'foolish matches' about their claim that the increase would mean that £ 13.4 billion would be spent on defense.
On Tuesday, the PM announced a dramatic increase in defense expenditure from the current 2.3 percent to 2.5 percent cents in 2027 in response to 'Tyrant' Vladimir Putin and in the midst of uncertainty about the dedication of the US to European safety.
He also set a new ambition to hit 3 percent cents in the first half of the following decade.
The increase in military financing is at the expense of the auxiliary budget, which will be reduced in 2027 from 0.5 percent of the gross national income to 0.3 percent cents.
Cabinet ministers have reportedly expressed concern about the plans, warning in a cabinet meeting for the risk of unintended consequences of reducing the auxiliary budget.
But Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner insisted yesterday that the ministers were 'united'.
She said broadcasters that the decision was' devastating ', but said:' The cabinet had a discussion about it and we were all united that the most important responsibility of every government is to keep its citizens safe.
“We acknowledged that we had to ensure that we had extra resources within our defense space.”
David Lammy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said earlier this month that Mr. Trump's plans to make dramatic cutbacks on the international auxiliary budget of the United States could be a 'big strategic error'.
But he said yesterday: “We are a government of pragmatics, not ideologists – and we had to match the compassion of our internationalism with the need for our national security.”
