Category Archives: Society

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
Afghanistan, Britain, Government, Iraq, Politics, Society, Terrorism

A dangerous world means Britain cannot retreat

afghan

Greater economic development and democratic consolidation are key to stability.

Intro: The world is, and always has been, a dangerous place. We should not hide from those dangers

The British Defence Secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, recently spoke candidly about the condition of Afghanistan and the possible continuing consequences for Britain. Sir Michael deserves credit for raising the issue so openly. The country remains a base for international terrorists who mean us harm, he said. He also suggested that the ‘collapse’ of the fragile state could send millions of young Afghan men west in a new phase of European migration that would inevitably affect the UK.

Such a premonition paints a grim picture, but all the more so because it comes more than 15 years after British troops were sent to Helmand Province in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks of 2001 on the US.

The military mission, at first, was to render ineffective an international terrorist group that meant us harm; yet, today, al-Qaeda under various Arabic guises and splinter groups remain operably active. Later, the British mission shifted to one of nation-building and the reinforcement of Afghanistan’s fragile and desperate government. It was done so to avoid precisely the sort of collapse that Sir Michael now refers too.

To some, the lack of significant progress in Afghanistan will be proof that Western military interventions in poor and unstable countries are doomed to fail. Iraq, and more recently Libya, the nexus of why Europe is facing unmitigated levels of migration, might equally be cited as additional evidence for that case. What is clear is that all three interventions have been flawed, suffering from a lack of political leadership and, in some cases, extremely poor military planning.

To those who believe Britain has no inalienable right to remake the world, Theresa May’s professed scepticism about wars of liberal intervention will be a welcome shift in approach when it comes to foreign policy. Yet, healthy doubt about military adventurism does not necessarily mean a British retreat from the world.

The defence secretary’s words and rhetoric are a stark reminder, whether we like it or not, that the consequences of previous Western interventions continue to this day.

They must be dealt with, not ignored. We should indeed go on working to support a democratic government in Afghanistan, including the aiding of its security forces if needed.

In Iraq, where government forces are pushing back Islamic militants in Mosul, has shown that with continued Western backing, local military units can take responsibility for securing their country.

Britain’s role in Afghanistan must continue, and may have to expand by putting boots back on the ground there. If that means spending more on defence, for the security and stability of the West, so be it. The world is, and always has been, a dangerous place. We should not hide from those dangers.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, NATO, Politics, Society, Uncategorized

NATO defence spending

DEFENCE

nato-funding

Intro: Mr Trump is right to ask serious questions about the budgetary imbalance

The visit by Theresa May last month to Washington won an important acknowledgement from President Donald Trump: ‘he was 100 per cent behind NATO’. This was perceived as something of a coup given Mr Trump’s apparent indifference towards the 70-year-old alliance. His principal objection was not so much its existence as to the disproportionate contribution being made by the United States to its upkeep. By some measures, America pays 75 per cent of the total of NATO spending, most of which provides for the defence of Europe.

Donald Trump’s view – and, also, that of President Obama before him – is that Europe should shoulder a bigger share of that burden. A NATO symposium in Cardiff a few years ago proposed a minimum standard: that all NATO members should spend two per cent of their GDP on defence. This suited the UK because we have been meeting are two per cent commitment. According to the Government and NATO we continue to do so. A think-tank report, however, has caused consternation in Whitehall by suggesting all is not as it seems.

According to The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), last year’s figure was put at 1.98 per cent, below the NATO standard. The report claims that in Europe, only Greece and Estonia met the 2 per cent target in 2016. It has been suggested that the UK fell slightly short of the target because the economy grew faster than expected. The cash shortfall equates to around £380million. The British Government has responded by denouncing the calculation as “wrong” and has pointed to official NATO statistics from last July which put the UK’s defence spending for 2016 at 2.21 per cent of GDP. The Ministry of Defence has blamed exchange rate fluctuations caused by the drop in the value of pound sterling for the IISS ‘miscalculation’.

But this argument is largely specious – superficially plausible, but actually wrong – because, what matters is not a smoke-and-mirrors-game played with national budgetary statistics, but the provision for an adequate defence of Europe (largely paid for by the countries of Europe). Mr Trump is right to ask serious questions about the budgetary imbalance. The recent revelations that the Royal Navy’s entire fleet of seven attack submarines was out of action indicates that this is more than just massaging budgets; what matters is having the military capability to defend the nation and contribute to the requirements of the alliance whenever necessary. The politics and intergovernmental wrangling are secondary to the provision of effective defence systems; and the UK – and many others in Europe – need to pay their proper share towards them.

Standard