First Minister Criticizes Defence Spending Hike as 'Militarization Agenda'

First Minister Criticizes Defence Spending Hike as 'Militarization Agenda'

The UK government's decision to increase defence spending is part of a "macho agenda of militarisation," according to Northern Ireland's First Minister, Michelle O'Neill.

Her remarks came after Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed an extra £2.2bn for the Ministry of Defence in her Spring Statement, citing the need to "secure Britain's future in a world that is changing before our eyes."

Alongside the defence boost, Reeves announced further welfare reductions as she seeks to adhere to strict borrowing limits. The health-related component of Universal Credit for existing claimants will remain frozen at £97 per week until 2029-30, following a prior decision to halve and then freeze payments for new applicants.

Government projections suggest these welfare cuts could push an additional 250,000 people into poverty by 2030, including 50,000 children. Alarmingly, 96% of families expected to lose out financially include at least one person with a disability.

Reeves also revealed that public spending growth will be lower than originally planned, averaging just 1.2% annually after 2026. This follows the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) latest downgrade of UK economic growth forecasts, with this year's outlook now at 1%—a sharp drop from the 2% estimate made in the autumn.

First Minister O’Neill criticized the government’s approach, arguing that such policies prioritize militarization at a time when public services, particularly the health sector, are in dire need of investment.

"This is a time for our own administration to fight back hard against this militarization agenda," she said. "This does not serve the interests of the people here."

Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly also urged the chancellor to reconsider her approach, accusing Reeves of unfairly burdening those least able to cope with economic strain.

While acknowledging the necessity of defence spending, Little-Pengelly argued that Reeves' choices reflected a failure to drive economic growth, stating: "The chancellor had options, but these decisions are a consequence of a lack of economic expansion.

The comments posted here are not from Cnews Live. Kindly refrain from using derogatory, personal, or obscene words in your comments.