Britain, Government, Russia, Society

Defence Secretary: Putin has hostile intent

BRITAIN-RUSSIA RELATIONS

VLADIMIR Putin has “hostile intent” towards Britain, the Defence Secretary has said. Gavin Williamson called for the UK to wake up to the threat posed by Russia.

He warned that the Kremlin had developed a much more aggressive posture towards the UK in the past 12 months and the country should not sit submissively by.

With relations between Britain and Russia believed to be at an all-time low, Mr Williamson told MPs that the country needed to “match what Putin is doing with Russian forces”.

During defence questions in the Commons, he said: “Putin has made it quite clear that he has hostile intent towards this country.

“We’ve been seeing the build-up of his forces across the Eastern front and in terms of what they’re doing over many years now – we have to wake up to that threat and we have to respond to it.

“And it is not just through nuclear weapons – our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent is absolutely integral to maintaining the peace, but it is also through conventional armed forces. We have to match what Putin is doing with Russian forces.”

His comments came after he was asked by Labour’s Barry Sheerman about comments the Russian president had made in a statement-of-the-nation speech last week.

Mr Sheerman pointed out that Mr Putin had basically announced “a new Cold War”.

Mr Putin boasted in his speech that Russia had developed an arsenal of invincible nuclear weapons that are immune to enemy detection.

SERGEI SKRIPAL

Skripal

A former colonel in Russian military intelligence, Skripal was considered by the Kremlin to be one of the most damaging spies of his generation.

SERGEI Skripal, a former colonel in Russian military intelligence, was considered by the Kremlin to be one of the most damaging spies of his generation.

He was responsible for unmasking dozens of secret agents threatening Western interests by operating undercover in Europe.

Col. Skripal, 66, allegedly received £78,000 in exchange for taking huge risks to pass classified information to MI6.

In 2006, he was sentenced to 13 years in a Russian labour camp after being convicted of passing invaluable Russian secrets to the UK.

A senior source in Moscow said at the time: “This man is a big hero for MI6.”

After being convicted of “high treason in the form of espionage” by Moscow’s military court, Col. Skripal was stripped of his rank, medals and state awards.

He was alleged by Russia’s security service, the FSB, to have begun working for the British intelligence services while serving in the army in the 1990s.

He passed information classified as state secrets and was paid for the work by MI6, the FSB claimed.

Col. Skripal pleaded guilty at the trial and cooperated with investigators, reports said at the time. He admitted his activities and gave a full account of his spying, which led to a reduced sentence. In July 2010, he was pardoned by then Russian president Dmitry Medvedev and was one of four spies exchanged for ten Russian agents deported from the US in an historic swap involving red-headed “femme fatale” Anna Chapman.

Mrs Chapman, then 28, was a Manhattan socialite and diplomat’s daughter, who had lived and worked in London during a four-year marriage to British public schoolboy Alex Chapman.

After the swap at Vienna airport, Col. Skripal was one of two spies who came to Britain and he has kept a low profile for the past eight years.

He is understood to have been debriefed for months before being given a home and a pension.

Col. Skripal was turned by MI6 when he was posted abroad as a military intelligence agent in Europe in the mid-1990s. During his years working for MI6, the spy unmasked dozens of agents threatening Western interests.

Col. Skripal was so well-connected that even after his retirement from his spy service in 1999 he continued to pass exceptional secrets to London by staying in touch with his former colleagues as a reservist officer.

He may finally have been snared by the FSB after passing his intelligence to MI6’s infamous “spy rock” – a fake stone packed with receiving equipment in a Moscow park.

Russian secret services exposed the ploy in 2006, revealing how British undercover agents transmitted their data to the rock via a hidden hand-held device while walking past it.

After Col. Skripal’s conviction, one official said: “His activities caused a significant blow to Russia’s external security.”

Chief military prosecutor Sergei Fridinsky said: “It is impossible to measure in roubles or anything else the amount of harm caused by Skripal.”

State-run TV in Russia even compared him to the legendary Soviet double agent Oleg Penkovsky, who spied for Britain and the US during the height of the Cold War.

Penkovsky was shot by a firing squad in 1963 and is regarded as one of the most effective spies of all time.

Standard
Britain, Government, Military

The UK’s military capability is being drained by overseas aid

DEFENCE

BRITAIN’S military must stop being used as a ‘cash cow’ for overseas aid missions, the ex-armed forces minister has said.

Sir Mike Penning warns operations such as the Royal Navy’s task of rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean are ‘draining military capabilities’.

The senior Conservative says the Ministry of Defence must stop being seen as a ‘soft option’, warning that the backbone of the UK’s operational defence capability is being ‘stripped out’.

Sir Mike, who served eight years as a Grenadier Guard, says the cash for the Trident nuclear deterrent should be removed from the defence budget to free up more cash. ‘The MoD has got to stop being a soft option. It needs to spend what it has wisely and stand up to those who see it as a cash cow,’ he said.

The defence budget for 2016-17 was £35billion – of which around £2billion was earmarked for the annual operating costs of Trident.

Sir Mike warns that if the costs of the nuclear deterrent were not taken out of the budget then the MoD would be forced to cut more warships and troops.

‘The core and backbone of our operational defence capability are being stripped out at a time when our enemies are testing us every day’. He also says that the Department for International Development (Dfid) should shoulder the cost of more missions.

Sir Mike Penning, a former soldier who served eight years as a Grenadier Guard, said the cash for the Trident nuclear deterrent should be removed from the defence budget to free up more cash.

Britain should be proud of its commitment to aid spending, ‘but not if the cost is adversely affecting our military capability’. Sir Mike adds: ‘The question to be asked is why it should be our ships and troops being used when there are other ways to help.’

The Navy has been providing ships to rescue migrants and destroy smuggling boats in the Mediterranean since 2015.

Sir Mike says the aid ministry should be using its funds to lease other ships so naval assets could be freed up for other tasks. Emphasising the point that Royal Navy ships have helped to rescue thousands from the sea, he simply asks whether that is the best use of naval resources, and asks: ‘Why can’t we use some of the 0.7 per cent we have committed to international aid to lease ships that are much more suitable for the job?’

This would ‘free up the Royal Navy to do what they are trained and equipped to do – namely protect us… We should be using the Department for International Development cash where it is needed, not draining our military capabilities.’

A spokesperson for Dfid said: ‘Dfid works closely with the MoD to increase security overseas, and both departments want to use both the aid and defence budgets in the wisest way to boost our global influence and make the UK safer.

‘The International Development Secretary has had a series of meetings to see how the two departments can better achieve their aims.’

 

TRUE, with defence spending pared to the bone, former Armed Forces minister Sir Mike Penning asks a pertinent question. Why, he wonders, are we diverting warships from defending us to the job of rescuing migrants from the Mediterranean? There should be enough cash in our bloated foreign aid budget to lease far more suitable vessels for this task. Equally, we should ask what has happened to properly joined-up government?

 

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Britain lays down gauntlet to EU with ‘Brexit blueprint’

BREXIT

The British Prime Minister delivers her long awaited speech and blueprint for Brexit.

THERESA May has thrown down the gauntlet to Brussels by saying that the EU had a “shared interest” in making a success of Brexit.

In a long-awaited speech, the Prime Minister has set out a detailed blueprint for Brexit that would maintain trade links, while setting Britain free to decide its own destiny.

After Brussels accused her of “cherry picking” the parts of EU membership it likes, Mrs May pointed out that all trade deals work that way.

And, with the clock ticking down to Britain’s exit in March next year, she urged the EU to accelerate trade talks.

She said: “We know what we want. We understand your principles. We have a shared interest in getting this right. So, let’s get on with it.”

The speech, delivered last Friday at Mansion House in the City of London, follows weeks of Cabinet wrangling over how far to go in making a clean break with the EU.

In a decisive statement, Mrs May said she would lead Britain out of the single market, rejected calls to join a customs union, called time on the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and vowed to end free movement of people.

The PM said Brexit would produce “a stronger, more cohesive nation”. And she dismissed calls for a second referendum, saying: “We won’t think again on Brexit. The people voted for it and it is incumbent on the Government to deliver it.”

But she also warned that making a clean break with Brussels would come at the price of reduced access to European markets. “I want to be straight with people – because the reality is that we all need to face up to some hard facts,” said Mrs May.

“We are leaving the single market. Life is going to be different. In certain ways, our access to each other’s markets will be less than it is now. How could the EU’s structure of rights and obligations be sustained, if the UK – or any country – were allowed to enjoy all the benefits without all of the obligations? So we need to strike a new balance.”

Mrs May’s intervention does appear to have succeeded in uniting the warring factions of the Conservative Party without immediately alienating Brussels.

In a speech that was long on detail, Mrs May:

. Rejected “unacceptable” EU plans to keep Northern Ireland in the customs union after Brexit, which she warned would break up Britain.

. Said the UK may continue to respect EU state aid and competition rules – a move that could frustrate a future hard-Left government bent on imposing socialism.

. Pledged to maintain regulatory standards that are “as high as” the EU’s, even if they are achieved by different means.

. Warned that the European economy would lose out if it tried to punish the City.

. Set out two options for maintaining light-touch customs arrangements between Britain and the EU.

. Confirmed she was willing to walk away without a deal if the EU tried to punish Britain.

She also said that Britain could pay to remain in EU regulatory bodies in areas such as chemicals, medicine and aerospace – promised to negotiate a deal on fishing that would give British trawlermen a “fairer allocation” of fishing rights and said that Britain would demand “domestic flexibility” in areas like the emerging digital sector to prevent tech start-ups being held back by EU red tape.

On the critical balance between divergence from EU rules and access to the single market, Mrs May said she expected many regulations for traded goods to remain “substantially similar” in the immediate future.

But, critically, she said Parliament would be free to change them in future “in the knowledge that there may be consequences for our market access”. She said disputes would be settled by an “independent mechanism” – not EU judges.

Mrs May said she would not be knocked off course by hardliners on either side of the debate, saying she wanted the count.

In the run-up to the speech, Eurosceptic MPs were on red alert for any signs of backsliding.

However, most appear content that Mrs May had struck the right balance. Former Conservative leader and Brexiteer Iain Duncan Smith described the speech as “pretty good”.

And Tory ex-chancellor Lord Lamont said it was now time for diehard Remainers on the Tory benches to stop undermining Mrs May.

Sarah Wollaston, a leading Tory Remainer, described the speech as “pragmatic and positive”.

But diehard Remainer Anna Soubry struck a sour note, about Mrs May’s blueprint, saying: “It will not deliver the same benefits, the positives to our economy, as we currently have.”

The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier welcomed the “clarity” that Britain wanted a clean break, saying this would help Brussels finalise its negotiating guidelines.

 

AT the end of last week, and for the best part of an hour, Theresa May rattled off her Brexit objectives in a huge number of areas: agriculture, fisheries, migration, the Irish border, manufacturing, financial services, energy, science, haulage, nuclear safety, education and culture. People said they wanted more detail about her negotiating position prior to Britain leaving the European Union, and that’s exactly what she gave them.

What emerged was a pragmatic, common sense approach behind which she appears to have succeeded in uniting Cabinet colleagues as diverse as the Europhile Philip Hammond and the hardline Brexiteer Boris Johnson.

In some areas, Britain is bound to remain closely aligned with our partners’ rules and trading standards. But as Mrs May pointed out, this is true of every trade deal ever struck.

Crucially, however, the red lines the Prime Minister drew from the start remain intact. Come what may, we will be taking back control of our borders, laws and money – with British judges and a sovereign British Parliament no longer obliged to take orders from Brussels or the European Court of Justice.

For the avoidance of doubt, Mrs May spelled out yet again that this will mean withdrawing from the single market and customs union. There will be no second referendum.

. See also Britain will be entitled to walk away without a deal with the EU

Standard