Transcript of Is the UK Prime Minister spending more on defence because of President Trump? | BBC Newscast

The great lesson of our history is that tyrants like Putin only respond to strength. So today I have announced the biggest sustained increase in defense spending since the end of the Cold War.

So that was Kirstamert, the Prime Minister, giving a press conference in Downing Street when he was announcing that the UK was going to increase its defense spending.

It feels like one of these big moments with the flags and all the press huddled in just before the 6: 00 news in the evening. There's a bit of a debate about whether what he announced was actually significant enough to merit that and whether it was enough for some people to protect the UK's military and to strengthen the UK's defense. We're going to be talking about that on this episode of Newscast.

Hello, it's Alex in the studio.

It's James in the studio.

The defense spending has been obviously talked about increasingly over the course of the for the last seven days or so, and we've talked about it on newscast because we know that Donald Trump in the White House has basically said, Look, European, you've got to step up and increase your defense spending. But there's been this big question mark hanging over when the UK would actually increase its defense spending. Kierstam has said for a while, we're going to get to 2. 5% of GDP. At the moment, they're about 2. 3% of GDP. But what he hasn't done is set out a time frame for it. Then all of a sudden what happened in Westminster was all of this, rumors and stuff were kicking off that he was going to give a statement in the House of Commons, it could be something quite significant. Then it emerged, that's what he was announcing. All of a sudden, defense spending is going to reach 2. 5% of GDP by 2027.

Then an aspiration to go further, and it really was an aspiration. There were hedges in his description of how the UK might eventually, if appropriate, get to, say, a share of 3% of GDP for defense spending. All of this is happening, of course, as you say, Alex, against the backdrop of a Republican American President like none we've ever seen before, who has been highly critical. He was highly critical, Donald Trump, in his first term of European allies for, in his view, not spending enough as a proportion of their national economies on defense. He has picked that up again and is running with it this time. Of course, Kier Starmer is thinking about the politics of his meeting with Donald Trump as much as he's thinking about the politics of how this goes down at home. Presumably, that's why he's doing this, literally hours before he actually jets off to Washington.

Well, it was pretty much assumed, and I think there was a thought process that said, Kierstheimer is going to have to have something to say to Donald Trump when he goes to Washington and sits down with him. We know that this is, as you say, something that Donald Trump has been banging the drum about for some time. Not just Donald Trump, there have been other US presidents that have made the point that actually when it comes to NATO, for example, the US contributes a lot in terms of its defense, and other countries haven't even met what has been a basic agreed requirement for NATO spending on defense for some time. None of this will come as a surprise. But you know what, James? The thing that's always really interesting in politics, time timing, because it's been a labor position for a long time. We're not going to tell you when we're going to get spending this proportion of GDP on defense until after we've looked at all the detail. There's been a strategic difference review. That will come back in the spring, and then we'll set out a pathway. Then the day before Keir Starmer gets on a plane to Washington, we have this announcement about the timing.

It's inevitable that when he gave this press conference, that was a focus of a lot of the questions about it, including from our very own Chris Mason.

What do you say to those people who might think that Donald Trump is now effectively setting UK government policy?

Have you done an assessment on the impact of the cutting of the aid budget? Thank you.

I've I've been arguing for some time in most of the meetings I've been to since I've been Prime Minister for seven or eight months now, that European countries, including the United Kingdom, needed to do more for our own collective self, defense, and security. So that is not a new argument. Yes, it's true, President Trump thinks we should do more, and I agree with him. It chimes with my thinking on this. By more, I mean more capability, I mean more coordination, and I need more spending. It's interesting.

Chris mentioned in his question there the aid budget, this pot of money that the UK spends overseas and often in developing countries to try to help them with poverty and with disease and various other aspects, spreading democracy and so on. The reason he mentioned that is because Sirkir Starmer says how he's going to fund this increase in defense spending is by cutting that foreign aid budget. Cutting it, it should be said, again, it's been cut before. Confusingly, although they measure, I don't know why this is, Alex, maybe you know, but they measure the defense budget as a share of one way of looking at national income GDP. But for some reason, Sarkier measures the overseas aid budget as a share of another measure, gross national income, whatever. It's a share of the economy and it's going down from 0. 5% of GNI today, he says, to 0. 3% in in 2027. That's how he says he's funding this, although you could argue that nothing in government is directly funded. A, is not necessarily directly funded by B. We're constantly being told that there isn't a hypothication, as they call it in government. But nonetheless, that's how he says he's going to find the money.

Yeah, and that is really contentious because actually another target, and they do like to set these targets for how much they should spend on things, but another target used to be that the UK would spend 0. 7% on overseas aid aid or international development aid. Now, that was cut under the Conservatives down to 0. 5%. Even back at that time, I remember there were a lot of people saying, Hang on, that budget does some really important work. It does a lot of work internationally which promote the UK soft power, but it actually does some really important work in terms of people who are suffering with the effects of climate change or poverty. What it does is really valuable. There was an outcry at the time, and now it's gone down again to 0. 3%, despite the fact that Keir Starmer and the Labor Government said in their manifesto, they would hike that budget back up again. Already, almost as soon as Keir Starmer was on his feet in the House of Commons and talking about this, there were people raising concerns about the potential impact that cutting that specific budget would have. Among them, there was Sarah Champion, who's a Labor MP, who said that the impact that this might have on countries and people actually that really depend on this could be really significant.

Somebody else who for a long time has been saying how important having a decent level of spending in this area is, is Andrew Mitchell, who used to be International Development Secretary. I think I've got that tie at all, right? He's Now, he's in the conservative party, so he's obviously no longer in government, he's on the opposition benches. But he was on his feet in the comments and making exactly that argument that this is the wrong thing to cut.

I agree entirely with the strategic direction the Prime Minister has set out today. Defense and security must come first. But he does have choices about how he funds this important uplift. He and I voted together in the last parliament against balancing the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world. Does he still think that vote was right?

As you said, he's not the only one, Andrew Mitchell, making that point. David Miliband. Former Foreign Secretary. Former Foreign Secretary.

Labor Foreign Yes.

Now runs an international aid organization called the International Rescue Committee. He's been saying that this decision to cut aid by £6 billion in order to fund defense is a blow to Britain's proud reputation as a global humanitarian development lead It goes on to talk about the number of people in humanitarian need around the world. It says there's 300 million. It's unprecedented. The global consequences of this decision will be far-reaching and devastating. But I think the context, Alex, of this that's so important, isn't it, is what's happening yet again across the Atlantic. Because what's happening in the United States, the Trump administration has placed most of the employees of its entire Agency for International Development on Administrative Leads It has laid off hundreds more and it is taking, and Elon Musk, Donald Trump's aid but not aid, your sidekick but not sidekick, seems to be taking an ax or attempting to taking an just shutting it down completely. That surely is the context that we have to consider when we think about the political messaging, again, of the audience that Sirkir Starmer is thinking of above and beyond the domestic voter in this country and newscasters who are listening to this, but President Trump, assuming President Trump's not a newscaster, but I mean, maybe he is.

Yeah, and there were some quite warm words or warm sentiment coming already from Pete Hegset, the US Defense Secretary in response to what was coming out of the UK and the announcements by Keir Starmer today. The other thing I think is quite interesting about this, though, is that there's clearly people that are concerned about where Keir Starmer has decided to get the money with all of the caveats about the fact you don't literally pick up money out of one part and pop it into another. But the principle that he's saying, Look, I'm not happy, but we're having to cut the overseas aid budget because we have to fund our defense. There are people that are clearly unhappy with that choice, and we've heard it there. So Anne Derry Mitchell, Sarah, a champion, David Milliband. But more broadly, what they are saying is that they support the idea about increasing defense spending. I'm struck that if you look at the so Kemi Badenock, who has been arguing, she was arguing before Keir Starmer got up on his feet in the comments today saying, I'll back the Prime Minister if he has to take difficult decisions around increasing defense spending.

I actually think we should go further than spending 2. 5% of GDP. The leader of the Liberal Democrats said Davy, who was at the this weekend saying, I think that maybe we're going to get to a point where we need to go above 2. 5% of GDP, reform UK. I was even speaking to Carla Denia, the leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, on Friday on my other program, any questions? She was saying, We don't put a figure on it, but again, we are conscious that we do need to focus on national security. There's going to be an argument about the choice to take it from the overseas aid budget to put into defense. But I think for the most part, and this won't be everybody, this won't be everybody, but the most part, what you're hearing from the leaders of the parties at Westminster is the principle of increasing defense spending is something that they broadly support. I guess there are still questions about, A, whether it's going to be enough in their eyes, and B, whether or not in terms of actual capability, it's going to do whatever the UK and other EU countries believe that it needs to.

I mean, I imagine a far cry from the Labor Party of Jeremy Corbyn. You can't imagine Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn necessarily. I wouldn't have thought. I mean, maybe wrong, but one would not imagine that this would have been the tack taken by a Corbyn party. Maybe this is just evidence of how quickly and rapidly the Labor Party has changed. Kirstar was always saying, The Labor Party has changed under me. Maybe there is some evidence here that it really has and changed in a way that is going to make a significant difference in policy terms. But to your point there, Alex, There's on the other side of the ledger from the people who might oppose this, and of course, I'm sure there will be newscasters listening to this thinking, I don't want to be spending more on the Army and the Navy when I'm concerned about the state of hospitals and schools. But on the other side of that, there are plenty of people who are saying, Look, with the growing threat, the increased uncertainty in the world, the lack of apparent reliability of the United States as a partner, we've been talking all week about the potential ending of 80 years of security guarantees He's provided by the United States for Europe and other democratic nations, with all the caveats that come with that about America's behavior in certain ways at certain times.

But you have people saying, no, Europe, including the UK, really does need to step up and increase its defense spending. A lot of the voices in that debate, and not just in the military, but some of them in the military, are suggesting that this will be nowhere near sufficient. Actually, I suppose Kierstammer himself acknowledges that when he's talking about and then after For this 2. 5%, we're going to try to get to 3% of GDP spending on defense. Although as he did have, what were the caveats?

He said, subject- He said it was operationally necessary and subject to- Economic and fiscal conditions.

Yeah, well, That's a neater way of saying that. Yes, the way you put it was better.

No, you're completely right. This isn't in the abstract. You've had people like the head of NATO, Mark Ritter, who've made very clear that he thinks that people are going to have to go a bit further and faster. Of course, there are other NATO countries, Poland, for example, that are currently spending way more, like over 4% of their GDP on defense. I think it's going to be a very active conversation that takes place for some time. But what is important to say is that this has now been set out 2027. Just on the numbers before we get ahead of ourselves, what Kirstan was suggesting is that's going to be an extra £13. 4 billion a year for defense spending from 2027.

You have questions about that, don't you?

Well, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has a question about that, James, because they're suggesting that that number is much bigger than it actually will mean in terms of an increase. I think there's still some bossing me out to be done around this, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies' first reaction was that the government are saying £13. 4 billion extra a year. The IFS is saying, We don't think it's that big. We think that's assuming that the budget from now wouldn't have changed anyway.

It would have. The assumption being actually the IFS would argue that it would naturally have gone up in the next few years.

With GDP as GDP goes up over the next few years. But you have to recognize that at the same time that the Prime Minister was announcing that, there was a whole load of other stuff going on in and around Westminster to do with the things that will affect people's lives. We had some protests about people who work in the care sector, about impact of tax decisions that the government's taking around national insurance and how that's going to impact the care sector and whether it's going to be properly funded. We had protests from Farmers, when the Environment Secretary, Steve Reid, was making a big speech about the impact of inheritance tax proposals on farmers. We also had energy bills going up, which, of course, is not something as a very direct, it's not the government pushing energy bills up.

They have to call them saying they would come down.

They certainly did. It shows that... Just a reminder that so many people and families and individuals are going to be facing real financial pressure. I think you have to put it into all of that context that actually increasing defense spending in the short term will have an impact on the overseas aid budget, getting to 3% in what we know because we're told repeatedly by the government is a difficult situation when it comes to the public finances. There are going to be, in the words of Keir Starmer himself, some really, really difficult choices that people are going to have to live with as a potential consequence.

There might be difficult choices for him in the White House this week, which we'll talk about as the week goes on. Now, something totally different because more than a thousand musicians, including Annie Lennix, who else, Damon Olbern, Kate Bush, have released a silent album in protest at the UK government's plan changes to copyright law. As soon as I say that, I'm thinking, A silent album, but we will find out in a minute what that sounds like, if that makes any sense.

If they'd all contributed to an album, it'd be incredible, right? I mean, wow.

That we would definitely be playing if we could afford the copyright. That's the point because under the new proposals that they're talking about here, developers of AI would able to use content that's being created by musicians and so on on the internet to use it to train their models, to listen to it effectively and train their models, unless individual holders of those copyrights elected to opt out.

This is a proposal from the government, but it's proving pretty controversial. We're going to talk about it now with some people who have got views. We've got Max Richter, who is a composer, and he's actually one of the artists behind this silent album. You would have heard some of his compositions in some things like the film Mary, Queen of Scots, Peaky Blinders, a personal favorite, Black Mirror. Hi, good to be here. No, it's great to have you. We've also got Jamie and Jocco Goodwin, who was Jamie, the CEO of Music UK, and also used to work for the Conservatives in Government, but now you're on a bit of a career break. Indeed, yes. This is your focus. Exactly. As I understand it, and Max and Jamie, just correct me if I'm wrong, what's happening here is that there's this proposed change so that all of the content content that people in the creative industry and others, but focusing just on the creative industry that's out there already, basically, AI machines will be able to go through all of that content, use all of that data to train themselves. In order to stop that happening, you'd have to opt out of that system, right?

Yes. In order to generate content as an AI, it needs to be trained on content. It needs original content to be able to learn what patterns are, to learn essentially how to generate new music. Historically, that's always come about by companies needing to either have an agreement, have permission to use that music. This change would essentially say, rather than what we currently have, which is if you want to use Max's music, if you want to use the Beatles, it's In that catalog, you need to seek permission and probably negotiate some license, but really importantly, have permission to train your models on that content. What it's now going to say is, no, you can just do it unless those whose content it is actively opts out.

How, this is my first question of many, how would that opt-out process work? At what point do you opt-out? How do you communicate that you want to opt-out? Does this AI company that's listening to every single piece of music in the entire world. Does that company have to check with every single artist that ever was, whether they've opted in or out? I just don't understand how that would work.

I think Max will have a very good perspective from the artist side, but that's exactly why I think this is such a ridiculous I grapple with this when I worked in the music industry, and I also came across it when I worked in government. Exactly those questions are the questions that I don't think we've got real answers to. They've tried this in other countries, they've tried this in the EU, and it's had a whole load of issues because just like you say, how do you actually opt out? Particularly with creative content, you often don't have just one person who you need to seek permission from. You've got the songwriter who has performed it. Fair as people might own their own wider rights. What does this actually mean if someone opt out after a model has been trained? Do you then have to to basically disregard everything that model has spat out after it's been trained. There's lots of questions around this that I just think aren't very clear, and it's quite clear that actually this is really actually unworkable as well as being quite a more way forward.

Max, obviously, you might be affected by this because you've written, you're a composer who's written loads and loads of stuff for film, TV, theater. A lot of people will be familiar with your work. What's your worry when you're trying to navigate this?

Well, I think the big problem is, as you've already discussed, first is that this opt-out assumption puts the onus on individual artists to essentially police the entire tech landscape from using their work, which is absolutely impossible. It might be possible for very established artists with a big infrastructure, big industry partners, whether it be labels or publishers. It's conceivable that some mechanisms which could be developed in that way. But certainly for younger and ordinary artists, it's absolutely impossible. If such a thing were even technically possible, which I'm not at all sure about.

But do you object, Max? Just to be clear, do you object overall, now, leaving the opt-out to one side for the minute, to the general principle of, and I do say this as someone in really basic terms of a computer, if for want of a better word for AI, listening to your music, taking, if you want to use the word inspiration from that, if that's even the right term for a machine, and then churning something out. Do you object to that in principle in the first place, regardless of whether the opt-out works?

Well, I think it's quite a complex question. The first thing to say is that this is already happening. There are already systems out there which have already done that with all the music in the world. They are completely unlicensed, and there are various lawsuits going on. We're talking about what would be a best practice position in the It's not the future. Now, given that it's already happening, the question of whether I like it or not is to some extent mood, I have to say. But I think if it is to happen, and I choose to opt in, then what I'm doing is I'm providing some value to the AI system. I think any value that's derived downstream from that needs to be shared back to the original works. That's treating an AI-generated work essentially as a derivative work from something. So if somebody says, Write me a piece of something like the Beatles, then that will generate a payment all the way back down to the Beatles. I mean, yeah, the argument that the record is making is, if we take away the mechanism that the entire creative ecosystem depends on, which is copyright, because that's how value is created in the system.

If you take that away, it's going to collapse. It'll go away, and we'll be left with a very impoverished, reduced creative sector. It's mind boggling, really, that the government would consider this. I mean, the creative industries generate $125 billion a year. That's five times what car manufacturing does, 15 times what the steel industry does, and 100 times what the fisheries do.

It's interesting.

It's a big deal.

Yeah, it's interesting because the government has obviously put forward these proposals, and part of the government's argument that they say is that the way that it works at the moment, the current system, is actually holding back the creative industries and holding back the AI industry. That's their argument. Laura, our esteemed colleague Laura, actually had Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, on her program and asked her about this very issue not so long ago. Let's have a listen to what Rachel Reeves had to say.

The government are looking at copyright rules. We've got to get the balance right. We have got an amazing creative industry sector in the UK, one of the fastest-growing sectors in the economy. We want to support artists to make sure that they are properly rewarded for the content that they create But I don't think that is incompatible with attracting AI companies to invest in data, data centers, and a compute facility here in the UK. And unless we get that investment, we're going to miss out on big opportunities opportunities, not just for big firms, but also to make sure that smaller businesses can use new technologies to improve their productivity and improve their wages in their sectors. But would you, as a Chancellor in charge?

That was Rachel Reeves, and you could hear Laura just at the end there. Never stops. Never stops. She's always there. It's always Laura. Jamie, Clearly, part of the government's argument is that, and they've said this already, they want the AI to be the next industrial powerhouse and a huge revolution, and they want to make that happen. That's clearly part of the argument the government's making. But do you see that AI can actually benefit the industry? Do you see that actually there's something in AI when it comes to creativity and music and this sphere which can be a good... Because it's already been used in some capacity.

Yeah, and I think it's really important to say that across the creative industry, people do use AI. Ai is actually a valuable tool for lots of people when used properly. I think the challenge here is there's been a slight inflation about benefits of AI, to which I think are absolutely huge. I'm a huge enthusiast for AI. I think the impact it could have on medical research, diagnostics, the way public services work could be absolutely revolutionary and actually very positive. But to be frank, we're not going to find the cure for cancer by ripping off Max's back catalog. These are two completely different things. One of the things we've actually got to be looking at is how do we attract AI companies? How do we have an environment in this country that is conducive to AI companies being successful? That includes a whole load of different things. They care about energy costs, skills workforce, data protection regimes, access to chips. One of my problems with this policy is this seems to be a really easy small fruit that the government can reach to. It won't actually necessarily have an impact on a lot of investment decisions, but actually it's going to absolutely decimate the creative industries, which is an industry and a sector that that you already are incredibly successful in.

But hang on a minute. Copyright is not going to disappear. If somebody rips off, as you put it, Max's work on, I don't know, The Crown or Adastra or Shutter Island or one of the pieces of music that Max has made. I'm talking about Max, he's not here, but I'm going to put this to you, Jamie, first of all. The copyright laws will kick in, won't they?

It goes exactly back to what you were saying earlier. One, we often don't know if these works have been copied. There's no transparency. It's very hard to know what models have actually been trained on.

It's all subjective, isn't it? Well, you know if it sounds like it.

But no. Let me give you an example. At the moment, well, actually not necessarily at the moment, go back a few years, you would have companies, AI companies who might want to to use Max's work would be basically getting into negotiations with Max's publishers, with Max's representatives and saying, Right, we need to strike a commercial license because we recognize as a principle here that we're going to pay to use your content. All this essentially does is say, No, you don't need to do that anymore. It completely drives a wrecking ball through the principle of licensing, which is how many creators in this country earn their living, and essentially says, no, you don't need to have licensing agreements. Ai companies can essentially just use this work, and then you We can't get into the debate about whether or not, well, we had a copy here or no, we did have permission there, we didn't have permission there. It creates a whole load of uncertainty. Actually, there's a really deeper fundamental, for me, moral issue here that Max has touched on, and it's about putting the onus on the artist. Now, If Max wants an AI company to be able to use his work, then he can give them permission and he should be able to have the right to let that happen.

The idea that it's on him to say, no, I don't want someone to use my work. It's equivalent to us saying, If you don't want to be burgled, you've essentially got to sign up to a register to say that you opt out from being burgled. We have a system in this country of property rights that essentially means that if you want to create an idea, create a film, create a podcast, you actually have the right to do that, and it is not stolen from you. We don't live in a country where states or businesses can just take what you've created and monetise them. This drives a horse and coaches through that entire principle. Coach and horses. Coach and horses. Thank you.

All of the above in your view.

This is still a consultation phase at the moment, which is obviously why you are making your voices heard about it now. Is there somewhere that you look at that you think actually they've got this bang on, like a country around the world which is legislating and managing this in a way that you think is working?

It's difficult because so much of this technology is new and it's moving incredibly fast. If we all look at some of the proposals that government put out around AI just for a couple of years ago, they probably seem almost out of date now.

Things are moving so quickly. Was this when you were working with the government and you saw up close how they were dealing with some of these things?

You do. Because it's moving so quickly, it's difficult to properly nail down. It's why one of the reasons jump into this policy option before we actually know the outcome of a number of the legal cases that are happening around copyright at the moment, but also recognizing there are other countries who are doing things like this, who are actually watering down their copyright regimes, but they do not have the world-leading creative industry sectors that we do. Now, I can understand if you're a country, then it's importing copyright, it's importing music, you don't really worry about your domestic artistic creative base. The creative industries in this country are one of the jewels in this country's Crown, and we're essentially pursuing a policy to try and flatter tech executives and throw our creative industries under the bus.

Right. Max, I'm sorry, I was talking about you a minute ago as if you weren't there, and you are very much here. The question I have is almost a much bigger question, which is we heard the Chancellor a minute ago, Rachel Reeves, saying to Laura, This is about jobs, this is about factories, this is about growth, this is about prosperity. But is it not about something fun are more existential? Are we not in the realms what it means to be human? What is art?

Absolutely. I think that's incredibly important.

If you could now answer both those questions for me, that'd be great.

Yeah. No, I think you're absolutely right to raise that because I think creativity, it isn't just about producing productivity and money and all of that. Of course, it's a big business, but ultimately, music, art, books, these are things which are some of the most profound things that we do as a species. There are ways to communicate our deepest selves to one another. There are ways to experience how somebody else sees the world. They communicate deep values? These are, in a way, priceless experiences. And I just think it's a needlessly problematic way to deal with it. It just doesn't have to be this way. I think there can be a sophisticated, intelligent solution which meets the needs of AI developers and protects the creative community I think that's completely possible, but it certainly isn't possible with the current proposal.

On that, the government says that it is trying to protect the interests of both of those, exactly as you say, Max, AI developers and rights holders delivering a solution which allows both to thrive. It is a consultation. They say no decisions have been taken, no moves will be made until they're confident they have a practical plan that delivers each of our objectives. Maybe you can come back, Max and Jamie, and talk to us when we see the end of this consultation to see if the silent album and your protestations have had any impact.

Yeah, and in the meantime, we've solved what it means to be human and what is art. So I mean, it was worthwhile.

It was worthwhile. Thank you so much, Max, Jamie. All right.

Sure. Thank you.

That's it.

That's all from us on this edition of newscast. Bye-bye.

Bye.