Monthly Archives: February 2017

Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

View: Sir John Major and the Brexit vote

BRITAIN

john-major2

Intro: Crucially, however, if Sir John accepts the democratic decision, his counsel would surely be better deployed by helping Theresa May achieve the best possible deal for Britain

IN the space of just ten days, we have had two high profile speeches from two former British prime ministers. Both have entered the Brexit fray at a critical moment in the passage of the Article 50 Bill through Parliament.

First, Tony Blair, the former Labour prime minister, has called for a mass movement to overturn the result of the June 23 plebiscite. Mr Blair is orchestrating his campaign through a new foundation, a lobby group, titled Open Britain. Now, Sir John Major, the former Conservative prime minister, has waded into the debate. Sir John warns of all sorts of pitfalls ahead as Britain negotiates its exit from the European Union.

The former Conservative leader does not follow his successor in Downing Street by proposing a campaign to reverse the democratic decision of the electorate. Unlike Mr Blair, Sir John says that while he considers Brexit to be a ‘historic mistake’ it was one the British people were entitled to make.

John Major’s principal concern is with what he regards as the over-optimistic and rather simplistic expectations of those who desire a clean break with Europe. He fears for the future of the United Kingdom if Scotland were to hold another independence referendum, as well as for peace in Northern Ireland. Sir John says trade deals will be hard to achieve, the cost of leaving the EU will be substantial and that there will be long-term political consequences.

All of these points were made by various factions within the Remain camp during the referendum campaign, but the vote went against them. Sir John says that Remainers are howled down when they continue to express their opposition to Brexit, inferring an impingement against the traditions of free speech in Britain. Some will believe that Sir John’s protests are overexuberant.

One reason why some Brexiteers are overreacting to the criticisms of the referendum result is because they believe efforts are under way to reverse it. Indeed, some have argued that Mr Blair is leading those efforts in consort with Sir John Major.

Crucially, however, if Sir John accepts the democratic decision, his counsel would surely be better deployed by helping Theresa May achieve the best possible deal for Britain.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society, Uncategorized

Sir John Major delivers a stinging attack on Brexit

BRITAIN

sir-john-major

Former Conservative Prime Minister Sir John Major has referred to Theresa May’s language on Brexit as “cheap rhetoric”.

Intro: In his Chatham House address, Sir John pulls few punches over his fears for the consequences for the UK once Article 50 is triggered and the UK prepares to quit the bloc

Sir John Major has delivered a withering assessment of Brexit, warning the UK will become reliant on an unpredictable Donald Trump, risks making the poorest “worse off” and could unleash Europe-wide populism marked by “bigotry, prejudice and intolerance”.

In a speech, the former Conservative Prime Minister, making a rare intervention in British politics, calls the vote an “historic mistake”, warns Theresa May of “cheap rhetoric”, and criticises Brexiters for “shouting down” those who want to remain in the European Union, encouraging them not to “keep quiet and toe the line”.

His comments echo those made by fellow ex-PM Tony Blair, who two weeks ago waded back into British politics by urging the public to “rise up” and change their mind on Brexit if Theresa May tries to quit the EU “at any cost”.

Both Sir John and Mr Blair campaigned for Remain ahead of the referendum, and shared a platform to make the case not to quit the EU.

In his Chatham House address, Sir John pulls few punches over his fears for the consequences for the UK once Article 50 is triggered and the UK prepares to quit the bloc.

He says he has been contacted by Remain voters of all political persuasions who are “in dismay, even despair”.

“They do not deserve to be told that …. they must keep quiet and toe the line,” he says, appearing to encourage protest.  “A popular triumph at the polls – even in a referendum – does not take away the right to disagree – nor the right to express that dissent.”

He says “freedom of speech” is not “undermining the will of the people”, a frequent charge levelled at ‘Remoaners’.  “They are the people,” he adds. “Shouting down their legitimate comment is against all our traditions of tolerance.  It does nothing to inform and everything to demean – and it is time it stopped.”

Sir John goes on to back Parliament having the final say on the Brexit vote: “Our Parliament is not a rubber stamp, and should not be treated as if it were.”

He also fears breaking ties with the EU will mean becoming “far more dependent upon the United States”, and appears to have little confidence in President Trump being the UK’s salvation, arguing the UK is reliant on a “President less predictable, less reliable and less attuned to our free market and socially liberal instincts than any of his predecessors”.

He goes on to suggest Brexit will diminish the ‘special relationship’. “Once we are out of the EU, our relationship with the United States will change. She needs a close ally inside the EU:  once outside, that can no longer be us.”

Against a backdrop of right-wing parties in strong positions ahead of elections across Europe this year, Sir John thinks Brexit has “energised the anti-EU, anti-immigrant nationalists that are growing in number in France, Germany, Holland – and other European countries”.

He says: “None of these populist groups is sympathetic to the broadly tolerant and liberal instincts of the British.  Nonetheless, their pitch is straightforward.

“If Britain – sober, stable, moderate, reliable Britain, with its ancient Parliament and anti-revolutionary history – can break free of a repressive bureaucracy in Brussels, why, then ‘so can anyone’.  It is a potent appeal.”

He adds: “I caution everyone to be wary of this kind of populism.  It seems to be a mixture of bigotry, prejudice and intolerance.  It scapegoats minorities.  It is a poison in any political system – destroying civility and decency and understanding.  Here in the UK we should give it short shrift, for it is not the people we are – nor the country we are.”

Sir John fears trade negotiations are “already sour”, and calls for a “little more charm, and a lot less cheap rhetoric”. And he is concerned the people who voted to leave Europe to improve their lives will be disappointed.

“If events go badly, their expectations will not be met, and whole communities will be worse off.  The particular fear I have is that those most likely to be hurt will be those least able to protect themselves.”

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, Islamic State, Military, Politics, Terrorism

RAF drone strikes on IS Britons

MILITARY

reaper

Reaper: An RAF UAV killed two Islamic State terrorists in Syria back in August

Intro: Ministers must be more open and transparent about drones.

DEFENCE officials have been urged to come clean and reveal the full details about covert RAF drone strikes against British jihadists.

It came as a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan claimed it was “cowardly” not to publish information about UK jihadists killed while fighting overseas for Islamic State.

Colonel Richard Kemp said: ‘British citizens who have gone out there have become the enemy. Their death is something Parliament should be informed about unless there are security reasons.’

See also: Drones and the unproven efficacy of these weapons…

He argued there were a ‘number of benefits’ of informing Parliament, adding: ‘It shows IS are not supermen. It could well, in some cases, act as a deterrent because British forces will know that if they go there is a very good chance of us killing them.’

There is now a mounting backlash after it was revealed that drone pilots at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire and others flying jets had killed British jihadists in the Middle East but neither Parliament nor the public were informed.

A cross-party group of MPs and peers, including former director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald, wrote to the Prime Minister urging the Government to publish the identity of Britons killed in RAF strikes.

The co-chairman of the group, Kirsten Oswald MP (SNP), said recent revelations that the RAF was ticking off a ‘kill list’ that included UK jihadists were ‘deeply concerning’.

Commons leader David Lidington faced calls to allow an urgent parliamentary debate on the existence of the list, which includes high-value British targets.

Defending the Government, he told MPs Britons tempted to join militant groups must know they risk losing their lives.

Miss Oswald, the SNP’s armed forces spokesperson, urged the Government to reveal how many UK citizens have been targeted.

She later added that there were ‘many questions unanswered’.

‘If the UK Government is conducting an operation designed to “take out” UK citizens without parliamentary scrutiny or public awareness, that is clearly unacceptable,’ she said.

Mr Lidington replied in the Commons: ‘The Defence Secretary has been very clear that we and the coalition against Daesh (IS) will pursue people who are a threat to our security and to the safety of British citizens wherever those people may come from.

‘We act, as always in our military operations, within the law, but the message to anybody tempted to join Daesh must be that they do so at great risk to themselves.’

David Cameron stunned MPs 18 months ago when he disclosed that a British drone had killed a jihadist in Syria who was plotting an atrocity in the UK. Shortly afterwards, Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said Britain would not hesitate to carry out more drone strikes against jihadists plotting ‘armed attacks on our streets’.

That December, MPs voted in favour of the UK joining a coalition of nations carrying out airstrikes on IS targets in Syria.

Since then the RAF has been tasked with taking out UK jihadists plotting attacks in Britain and other high-value targets. Parliament has not been informed of the British deaths.

Labour MP John Woodcock, formerly a member of the defence select committee, said the British jihadists were a ‘legitimate target of our armed forces’, but added: ‘The Government needs to be upfront about what is happening.’

Members of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Drones, including Lord Macdonald, has now written a letter to Theresa May demanding details of UK jihadists bombed by RAF fighter jets.

Admiral Lord West, former head of the Royal Navy, said: ‘If someone from Britain breaks the law, if they get killed, then so be it. They are dead men walking.

‘If there is a policy of extrajudicial killings, that does need to be talked about. If we happen to kill them because we are targeting infrastructure, that is different.’

However, Sir Michael Graydon, a former head of the RAF, said releasing details of Britons killed would be a ‘golden opportunity’ for claims by ‘crooked liberal lawyers’.

The Ministry of Defence said: ‘The UK is committed to the defeat of Daesh and publishes regular updates on airstrikes conducted by the RAF.’

OPINION

We should have no sympathy at all with Britons who joined Islamic State in Syria or Iraq who find themselves on the end of a deadly drone attack.

Anyone who allies themselves with this barbaric group is a traitor, an enemy to our way of life and a threat to this country. They deserve everything they get.

Nor should we join in the hand-wringing at the very idea of using remote-controlled planes operated from thousands of miles away. Is a drone strike really more barbaric than any other weapon of war?

No, our principal concern, following the revelation that the military is using targeted assassinations against jihadis on a ‘kill list’, is the distinct lack of transparency with which it is being operated.

Yes, David Cameron told Parliament in 2015 that two Britons had been killed in a drone strike. But since then the programme has been carried on in secret.

Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon would lose nothing by encouraging more openness about this new form of warfare.

Standard