raises

Netflix bosses have raised UK prices for the second time this year – with the cheapest plan going up by a third

There is bad news for Netflix users after bosses raised the prices of UK subscriptions for the second time this year.

The streaming platform, which houses Stranger Things, Love Is Blind, Bridgerton, Selling Sunset and many other beloved programmes, has updated its pricing – with the cheapest rising by a third.

Customers will be given 30 days’ notice by email before the changes. Those with the standard plan with ads will now pay £7.99 a month, up from £5.99, while the advert-free option has moved from £12.99 to £13.99.

Users who have a premium plan, which allows them to add extra members and stream on more devices, will pay £20.99 from their next billing cycle, a change of £2.

For viewers who want to add an extra member for their subscription, they will have to pay £5.99 under new guidelines, up from £4.99.

This is the second time that the prices have increased this year, with previous changes being introduced in February.

A spokesperson said, via Deadline, that the changes “reflect improvements to our wide range of entertainment and the quality of our service.”

“Our approach remains the same: we continue offering a range of prices and plans to meet a variety of needs, and as we deliver more value to our members, we reinvest in quality entertainment and improve their experience by updating our prices,” the statement added.

“We know members have never had more choices in entertainment, and we’re committed to delivering an experience that meets and exceeds their expectations.”

The news was confirmed just after the second series of Guy Ritchie’s acclaimed drama, The Gentlemen, landed on the platform, with many high-profile releases still to come.

Keira Knightley will be returning in season two of Black Doves in November, while a documentary on late Friends actor Matthew Perry will hit screens at the end of October.

In recent years, original shows including Adolescence, Baby Reindeer, The Crown and Ozark have collected a string of awards. Fans have also raved about Netflix’s film slate, including Voicemails for Isabelle, Nonnas, Carry-On and Rebel Ridge.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

China’s test of a nuclear-capable missile into the Pacific has exposed the growing divisions among Pacific island nations over the increasing militarisation of a region they have sought to preserve as an “Ocean of Peace”.

The July launch, China’s first known ballistic-missile test into the Pacific since September 2024, took place just hours after Fiji and Australia signed a major defence treaty, marking Fiji’s first formal alliance. The timing highlighted the increasingly complex security environment in a region where China, the United States and their allies are competing for influence.

More than a month after the test, Pacific Islands foreign ministers were unable to agree on a collective statement condemning Beijing’s missile launch, despite individual leaders expressing concern about the growing military presence in the region.

Papua New Guinea Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko described the test as “totally inappropriate”, while stressing that China remained a close friend and ally of Papua New Guinea. He said Beijing had provided advance notice of the launch but had not given details about where the missile would land.

China defended the test, saying it had been conducted safely and urging countries not to over-interpret the launch.

Growing Military Activity in the Pacific

The missile test came after a year of increasingly visible military activity across the Pacific, a region that has become a major arena of strategic competition between the United States and China.

Chinese naval deployments and live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea have coincided with U.S.-allied military exercises around Guam and Hawaii. Warship visits and expanding security partnerships have also increased across the region.

The United States retains a substantial military presence in the Pacific, including in Hawaii, Guam and the Marshall Islands.

For Pacific island governments, the growing military presence creates an increasingly difficult choice. Security partnerships can provide valuable capabilities for surveillance, disaster response, policing and training, but they can also increase the possibility that Pacific territory and waters become incorporated into wider strategic competition.

Tuvalu permanent foreign secretary Pasuna Tuaga expressed concern about the broader militarisation of the region, including security arrangements such as the AUKUS partnership between Australia, Britain and the United States.

Pacific Nations United in Principle but Divided in Practice

Pacific leaders endorsed the Ocean of Peace Declaration in September 2025, committing themselves to protecting the region and strengthening international peace and security.

The initiative reflected a long-standing desire among Pacific states to ensure that their security agenda is not dictated by larger external powers.

The defence agreement between Australia and Fiji, known as the Ocean of Peace Alliance, emerged from this broader regional framework.

But the growing number of security partnerships has created an inherent contradiction. Pacific governments want greater security capabilities while simultaneously opposing the militarisation of their region.

Australia and other partners argue that defence cooperation can strengthen regional resilience. Critics, however, fear that expanding bilateral arrangements could eventually leave Pacific nations with less influence over how their territory, waters and infrastructure are used.

Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Rick Houenipwela said the regional agenda must remain “conceived by the Pacific, shaped by the Pacific and only by the Pacific.”

Yet the failure to produce a unified response to China’s missile test demonstrated just how difficult that principle is to implement.

China Divides Regional Consensus

The disagreement over the missile test reflects the different political and economic interests of Pacific island nations.

Kiribati and Nauru, which have deepened their relations with Beijing after switching diplomatic recognition from Taiwan, did not support the wording of the proposed statement, according to an official familiar with the discussions.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters blamed foreign influence for the failure to reach consensus, although he did not identify a particular country.

The disagreement demonstrates that Pacific nations do not share a uniform approach toward China.

Some governments see Beijing as an important economic and diplomatic partner, while others are increasingly concerned about its military activities and the strategic implications of its expanding regional presence.

At the same time, many Pacific governments remain wary of becoming closely aligned with either China or the Western powers.

The Security Dilemma Facing the Pacific

The central problem for Pacific nations is the tension between security and strategic autonomy.

Countries require surveillance capabilities, military training, disaster-response mechanisms and other security resources. Defence partnerships can provide those capabilities.

But greater reliance on external powers can also make it more difficult for Pacific governments to maintain an independent regional agenda.

Fiji Foreign Minister Sakiasi Ditoka acknowledged this tension, saying countries wanted to be free from “war-making paraphernalia” while also recognising that some security capabilities helped keep them safe.

Fiji’s participation for the first time in U.S.-led RIMPAC military exercises further illustrates this balancing act.

The country is simultaneously promoting the idea of an Ocean of Peace while becoming more involved in established regional security structures.

Analysis: The Pacific Is Becoming a Strategic Battleground

The significance of China’s missile test goes beyond the launch itself. It has exposed the growing gap between the Pacific’s aspiration to remain an “Ocean of Peace” and the strategic realities surrounding it.

The region is increasingly being shaped by competing security partnerships, military exercises and the expanding strategic presence of major powers. China is becoming more active militarily, while the United States, Australia and their partners are strengthening their own defence relationships.

For Pacific island states, the challenge is therefore not simply whether to oppose China’s military activities. It is how to respond to them without allowing the Pacific’s security agenda to become dominated by great-power rivalry.

The failure to agree on a common statement is particularly significant because regional unity is one of the Pacific’s strongest tools for maintaining its diplomatic autonomy. When governments cannot agree on how to respond to a major security development, external powers gain greater room to shape the regional agenda.

At the same time, completely rejecting security partnerships would leave many Pacific states without capabilities they consider increasingly necessary. The result is a difficult balancing act: accepting enough external security assistance to address genuine threats while preventing those partnerships from transforming the region into a military theatre.

China’s missile test therefore exposes a deeper strategic dilemma. The more Pacific states seek security through external alliances, the greater the risk that the region becomes militarised; yet the more they reject those partnerships, the harder it may become to respond to an increasingly competitive security environment.

The upcoming Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting in Palau is likely to bring these questions back to the centre of regional diplomacy. The key issue will be whether Pacific nations can establish a collective security approach that protects their interests without allowing the strategic competition between China and Western powers to define the future of the region.

With information from Reuters.

Estimates of up to 2,000 migrants have entered Spain’s territory of Ceuta in recent days in attempts to reach Europe.

Authorities in Ceuta have raised the alarm after thousands of migrants breached the border to the North African Spanish enclave from neighbouring Morocco in recent days.

The government of Ceuta said on Thursday that between 1,500 and 2,000 people had entered in the last 10 days. Hundreds more were estimated to have arrived on Thursday, prompting regional President Jesus Vivas to declare an “absolute humanitarian and social emergency” and call on Madrid to send troops to reassert control of the border.

Spain’s Interior Ministry rejected calls to declare a national emergency, saying such a measure does not cover migration crises, but promised additional resources.

Footage showed some of the migrants shouting “Viva Espana!” as they entered the territory, many of them having travelled by water from the Moroccan side on inflatable devices.

Crowds were shown walking around the breakwaters onto local roads, reported The Associated Press news agency. State news agency EFE said others had crossed by the border by land, scaling fences.

Migrant rights activist Zakaria Zarroqui told the Reuters news agency that the surge in migrant numbers was similar to one that occurred in May 2021, when some 10,000 Moroccan and sub-Saharan youths entered ⁠the enclave within days.

“The situation remains out of control as we speak,” ⁠Zarroqui said, adding that people were still flocking to the Moroccan city of Fnideq in an attempt to cross the border.

Ceuta, together with Melilla — another autonomous ‌Spanish city in North Africa — represents the European Union’s only land border with Africa. Both cities often experience surges in attempted crossings by people seeking to migrate to Europe.

Earlier this month, Spain’s Supreme Court ruled that migrants intercepted at sea while attempting to reach Ceuta or Melilla cannot ⁠be returned to Morocco.

“It has been a slow trickle since the Supreme Court’s ruling, but today has been an explosion,” ⁠a Guardia Civil spokesperson told Reuters.

Spain’s Interior Ministry said it was working closely ‌with Morocco to address the surge in irregular arrivals, blaming people-smuggling networks for exploiting the Supreme Court’s ruling and encouraging undocumented migration.

Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska is expected to visit Ceuta on Friday to evaluate the situation.

The jailing of one of Indonesia’s most influential entrepreneurs in a controversial corruption case has raised fears of damage to investor confidence in Southeast Asia’s largest economy.

Nadiem Makarim, the cofounder of the popular super-app Gojek, was last month sentenced to 10 years in prison for allegedly abusing his authority while serving as the country’s education minister.

Makarim was found guilty of giving favourable treatment to Google, an early investor in Gojek, when procuring Chromebook laptops for schoolchildren during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prosecutors argued that Makarim, who served as former Indonesian President Joko Widodo’s education minister from 2019 to 2024, inflicted state losses of $120m, alleging that he should have been aware the laptops would not work in remote areas with poor internet access.

Critics of the prosecution have argued that the case against Makarim lacks evidence and that the startup founder-turned-politician is the latest victim of a campaign of political retribution being waged by the administration of Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto.

Nicky Fahrizal, a researcher of politics and social change at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Jakarta, said foreign investors will inevitably think twice before committing capital to Indonesia following the verdict.

“The Nadiem case, along with a string of similar incidents, has served as a warning signal to investors,” Fahrizal told Al Jazeera.

“For them, non-economic factors, such as legal certainty and the quality of the judicial system, are absolute prerequisites.”

Makarim was found guilty by a panel of five judges on June 30, following charges related to the procurement of more than 1 million laptops intended for use in schools in remote and impoverished areas.

At the trial held at the Indonesian Court for Corruption Crimes in Jakarta, prosecutors alleged that Makarim deliberately tailored the tender specifications to favour Google, which invested in Aplikasi Karya Anak Bangsa (AKAB), Gojek’s then-parent company.

Scrutiny of the tender process first arose among the public after it emerged that the Chromebooks often did not work in remote areas, raising questions about how Google was chosen in the first place.

“Choosing a device that relies on an internet connection amid uneven infrastructure… demonstrates a mismatch with needs…” Judge Sunoto said during the sentencing.

Following the verdict, prosecutor Corneles Geeb Paulus hailed the outcome as a victory for “the schoolchildren whose rights were taken away and who were deprived of equitable access to digital education across Indonesia”.

Google has denied providing or offering authorities any inducements to win the tender.

The California-based tech giant, which has a market value of more than $4 trillion, was not indicted in the case.

“From a legal standpoint, authorities seem to have hit a wall in their efforts to secure sufficient evidence and establish the necessary criminal nexus to prosecute the corporation,” the CSIS’s Fahrizal said.

“From a political perspective, Google is a tech giant with immense business influence.”

Taking action against Google could have jeopardised the government’s ongoing digitalisation efforts, Fahrizal added, describing the company as “too big to fail” within the digital sector.

Trissia Wijaya, an Indonesian-born research fellow at the University of Melbourne’s Asia Institute, said Nadiem’s prosecution, coupled with the uncertainty of the business environment under Prabowo, would inevitably erode market confidence.

“Regardless of whether Nadiem is actually guilty or not, he is a symbol of startups and market optimism in Indonesia, especially in the mid-2010s,” Wijaya told Al Jazeera.

“When Gojek started booming and gaining traction, Indonesia was one of the main target countries for global investors, both from the US and China, to invest in the fintech industry,” Wijaya added, describing Indonesia’s business environment as being at a “critical juncture.”

Since taking office in 2024, Prabowo has faced criticism over his handling of the economy, including high levels of spending on public initiatives, such as his signature free lunch programme, which is expected to cost about $15bn this year.

In June, the Indonesian rupiah hit an all-time low against the US dollar, a nadir economic analysts partly attributed to investors’ scepticism about Prabowo’s populist economic policies.

For his part, Prabowo has denied that he is anti-business, while emphasising that Indonesia must uphold the rule of law.

“Some have claimed that I dislike foreign investors and will drive them away, but that is not the case. I have met many investors who are planning to enter the market,” Prabowo told a conference for young entrepreneurs in the city of Lampung last month.

“The government must create a favorable environment for entrepreneurs, including the enforcement of the law. If the law is not enforced, what ensues is the law of the jungle… law based on power, and in the end, that is not good for any of us.”

‘Credibility’ of government policies

Siwage Dharma Negara, a co-coordinator of the Indonesia studies programme at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, said Indonesia’s reputation as an investment destination had already been in decline before the Makarim verdict.

“Investors are unsure about the credibility of government policies, and they are unsure about the credibility of institutions, whether executive, legislative, or judicial in Indonesia,” Negara told Al Jazeera.

“Nadiem’s case is only one factor that has damaged foreign investor confidence. But there are many other factors that contribute, including government policies that are increasingly less pro-market.”

Teguh Yudo Wicaksono, an economics lecturer at Universitas Islam Indonesia in Yogyakarta, said that although he does not expect the case to have much of an impact on foreign investment, it could deter Indonesian talent based overseas from returning home.

“This could result in a brain drain and Indonesia losing talent,” Wicaksono told Al Jazeera.

Makarim attended Harvard Business School and Brown University in the United States before returning to Indonesia in 2006 and cofounding Gojek four years later.

In 2019, Gojek, which began as a ride-hailing business before evolving into a super-app that also offers food delivery and digital payment services, became the first Indonesian tech company to achieve a valuation of more than $10bn.

Not all observers see the Makarim case as a negative for investor sentiment.

I Gusti Ngurah Bayu Pradana, an expert in business law at the Bali-based Malekat Hukum International Law Firm, said the enforcement of corruption law should be seen as a “positive signal for legal certainty and governance quality in a country, rather than a negative one”.

“Experienced foreign investors generally understand that the greatest risk in investing is not the existence of law enforcement, but rather, legal uncertainty, or a situation in which the rules of the game are unclear, legal processes lack transparency, or enforcement is selective and unpredictable,” Pradana told Al Jazeera.

While Makarim was found guilty of abusing authority and causing state losses, he was acquitted of an additional charge of directly seeking to enrich himself, and he was handed a lower sentence than the 18 years sought by the prosecution.

While reading the verdict, Judge Andi Saputra also presented a dissenting opinion, saying that he found “no evidence of malicious intent or malicious acts” and scant “causal connection or indication between the conflict of interest and the corporate crime”.

The Malekat Hukum law firm’s Pradana pointed to the judge’s dissenting view as evidence of the Indonesian judiciary’s independence and rigorous fact-finding.

“For foreign investors considering Indonesia as an investment destination, the takeaway from this case should not be alarm, but rather confidence that Indonesia’s legal system functions and can hold anyone accountable equally before the law,” Pradana said.

“So long as investment contracts are clearly drafted, business processes are conducted transparently, and implementation complies fully with applicable laws and regulations, investment in Indonesia remains a safe and promising choice.”

South Korean computer chip maker SK Hynix has raised $26.5bn (£19.8bn) in its New York share offering, marking the largest ever listing by a foreign firm in the US.

The company, a key supplier to artificial intelligence (AI) chip giant Nvidia, said on Thursday that it had sold 177.9 million American depositary shares for $149 each. The shares are set to begin trading on Friday on the Nasdaq.

In May, SK Hynix saw its market value top $1tn in its home country, lifted by the boom in demand for AI chips.

Its share price has more than tripled in South Korea this year, which along with Samsung Electronics has helped boost the benchmark Kospi index by more than 70% over the same period.

SK Hynix is one of the world’s leading memory chip makers. The industry has been given a major boost by the hundreds of billions being spent on AI.

Shares in rivals Samsung Electronics and Micron have more than doubled in recent months.

The US listing gives SK Hynix easier access to huge amounts of potential investment from the world’s biggest economy, which has fewer barriers than South Korea, said Seoul National University finance professor Jaewon Choi.

Traders are closely watching the listing as a “yardstick to test the water” for whether investor enthusiasm for memory chip makers will continue, Choi said.

The AI boom has triggered a rush of companies raising money on the the stock market.

In June, GrokAI owner SpaceX became the world’s biggest ever listing as it raised $85.7bn.

Meanwhile, AI developers Anthropic and OpenAI are preparing to go public, with valuations of more $1tn.

Demand for SK Hynix’s offering was reportedly over seven times more than the number of shares available, highlighting the strong investor appetite for a key company in the AI supply chain.

Each American depositary share is equivalent to a tenth of a Seoul-traded common share, SK Hynix said.

The offering gives US investors a way to buy SK Hynix shares without having to trade via an overseas stock exchange.

The company has pledged major investments to develop South Korea’s chip making and AI capabilities in the coming years.

The country’s government is likely to be counting on SK Hynix’s US listing to raise funds that can support the firm’s domestic investments, said Hanyang University business professor Yun Youngjin.

But the Nasdaq listing carries some risks, especially if investors move money towards the US and away from South Korea’s stock market, Yun added.

In June, the country’s government unveiled plans for more than $880bn of investments in partnership with SK Hynix and Samsung.

Both SK Hynix and Samsung have stock market valuations of more that $1tn, joining growing group of firms which includes tech giants Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft and Google-owner Alphabet.