The UK parliament is to vote today to resume military action in Iraq. I fully expect that the vote will approve the bombing of military targets occupied by ISIL.
Our politicians are making comments about not repeating the mistakes of the the past and that there is a need to plan for the future. Where is the plan as far as I can see there isn't one? We are almost certainly repeating the mistakes of the past.
The invasion of Iraq under the pretext of deposing Saddam Hussein and removing his "weapons of mass destruction" was a colossal mistake. The Western allies created a power vacuum which was subsequently filled by ISIL. The invasion resulted in many tens of thousands of innocent civilians being needlessly killed. This was claimed to be "collateral damage". Many thousands of civilians would have had their heads blown off by powerful explosions and some of them could even have been vapourised. It is no wonder that many young men from Iraq and the region now seek revenge. Some of these men would also have been brutalised by the war and now seek a violent solution to what they see as an injustice.
The war in Iraq has created a new sort of enemy just like the First World War did. The defeat and humiliation of Germany left a power vacuum which was eventually filled by fanatical extremists who had been brutalised in the trenches. Hitler and his henchmen then created a state which was more brutal than ISIL.
Britain and France were then forced into another bloody war. Have we learnt nothing? Have we forgotten why men and countries go to war?
Nothing much has changed as far as the human condition is concerned; it is just war and more war. I am not a pacifist and would probably have volunteered for the Second World War because my nation was directly threatened by a powerful and brutal neighbour. Britain and France and latterly Russia and the USA were forced to fight.
As far as the Levant , The Middle East and the Maghreb is concerned we have not been forced into a fight and there has been no need for invasions or bombing campaigns. The West should not get involved militarily and we should not attempt to dominate these regions by force. We do not understand the culture and religion so we have made matters worse from a political point of view.We have created more enemies to make life more difficult for ourselves.
With regard to defence, Europe can easily defend its borders from a direct military invasion by ISIL. Where is the real threat?
We have an internal threat but we have sufficient police forces to track down and arrest "terrorists" who are trying to overthrow our states by violence. The police could be helped in their mission by the military if necessary.
I should like to know how many divisions of soldiers ISIL can deploy? How many military jets they can deploy and what is their range? How many ocean going naval vessels they can deploy? I should like to know what the military threat to Europe is and how we can defend ourselves from it? We need to know this before engaging in another bombing campaign.
I should like to know what additional threat there is from internal enemies? So far both the police and secret services have been remarkably successful in defending Europe from murder and treasonable acts perpetrated by the supporters of ISIL and such like.
When I listen to parliament I hear all sorts of accusations that ISIL is a danger to the world on a scale unheard of since the Nazis. This is untrue; ISIL may be equally as brutal as the Nazis but they lack the military power and organisational ability to organise genocide on an industrial scale or to invade Europe. To make a decision to go to war on the basis of these accusations rather than the assessment of the real threat is unbecoming of a rational parliament.
I am also of the view that the threat to Europe's internal security has been exaggerated; so far police action has protected us well . It might be better to invest money in beefing up our national security services rather than commit resources to further bombing campaigns abroad.
ISIL is a brutal regime which must be tackled but the regional powers have a responsibility to intervene. Iran is a regional power and it should be allowed to broker a peace agreement. The regional powers are better able to halt the spread of ISIL and its ideology. It is more practical from a military point of point to allow the regional powers to find a solution.
I fear that more bombing by the Western allies will lead to further destabilisation of the region and more innocent civilians being killed. The deaths of the innocents as a result of "collateral damage" will create further resentment and further justification for young men to take up arms and commit further atrocities.
This evening our MPs will vote for this military action and the bombing will begin shortly afterwards. Our parliamentarians will have made this decision without examining the real military threat and the consequences of further bombing campaigns.
The war will "ramp up": ISIL will melt away into the towns and cities to wait for the opportunity to spread their word and cruel ideology across the whole of the Middle East, the Levant and North Africa. The West is walking into a trap; we have armed the wrong people and we have once again been fooled. Our formers "friends" are now our enemies just because we wanted to depose Assad. The ISIL fighters and regime hail from Syria and it is the West who have supplied them with arms both by design and by accident. This was simply naive of us.
We now face the prospect of British war planes in action again and further revenge attacks upon our innocent civilians and the assassination of aid workers.
The revenge and war will continue until Western politicians can think of something better than bombing to solve the world's problems - there is not much hope of that unfortunately.
Friday, 26 September 2014
Tuesday, 23 September 2014
Reforming the British Constitution
The recent vote for Scottish Independence resulted in a "No" vote but it seems that many voters only voted "No" because they were promised more powers to be granted to the Scottish Parliament. If the the promise to devolve more power had not been made at the last minute then the result of the referendum would have been closer. A 55% to 45% vote split in favour of Scotland remaining in the Union could have been closer at 52% to 48%. The electorate could have voted for independence but we shall never know for certain.
One thing is certain; the promise made to the Scottish people by all three of leaders of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties must be kept. If not the next referendum might see the UK breaking up but most people in Britain do not want to see that happen.
What is uncertain, though, is how those disappointed with the result of the vote will react if further devolution is denied to them: there could be social unrest.
There was a solemn promise made to the Scottish people and this should not be reneged upon by linking Scottish devolution to English devolution. The promise was made to Scotland and not England or Wales and Northern Ireland for that matter.
Constitution reform needs to be carefully thought out and it must be agreed upon by the majority of the electorate and its Members of Parliament.
One quick fix solution has been proposed so far but this would lead to disastrous consequences. This is proposal that Scottish members of the national Union Parliament should be debarred from voting on English only matters. However, English MPs would be allowed the dual function of voting for policy regarding England and policy for the whole of the United Kingdom. This proposal is inherently unfair as there would be a conflict of interests. The national UK Parliament should be a separate body from any devolved Parliament for Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or Wales and MPs should be barred from sitting in both the Union Parliament and a devolved national Parliament. This will help to prevent England completely dominating policy for the Union in general.
I am of mixed Welsh and English descent and regard myself as completely British and for me it would be a political tragedy if our Union broke up.
However, I can see why Welsh people will be very upset if they see that England or Scotland get an unfair advantage arising out of a lopsided constitutional settlement. The Welsh may feel that they are better off being independent so there would be further pressure for the Union to break up. And no doubt feelings in Northern Ireland would be similar.
Any constitutional settlement should be equitable so perhaps there should be a fully federal system. One thing is certain; it must be seen to be fair and any promise that is made should be kept. This is no time to worry about how much it might cost either: the future of the British nation is at stake.
There is also another point which advocates for constitutional reform should bear in mind. The Scots and the Welsh are much more in favour of the EU than many English people are. If the whole of the UK votes to withdraw for the EU then Scotland and Wales may wish to retain their membership and this could be another route to the break up of the UK.
The peoples of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have had plenty of time to think of the consequences of devolution and now it is time for the English to get their thinking caps on. It is also time for the English to consider whether they really want to face the future without the rest of the UK, because that would be the consequence of not considering the opinions and feelings of all the British people.
One thing is certain; the promise made to the Scottish people by all three of leaders of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties must be kept. If not the next referendum might see the UK breaking up but most people in Britain do not want to see that happen.
What is uncertain, though, is how those disappointed with the result of the vote will react if further devolution is denied to them: there could be social unrest.
There was a solemn promise made to the Scottish people and this should not be reneged upon by linking Scottish devolution to English devolution. The promise was made to Scotland and not England or Wales and Northern Ireland for that matter.
Constitution reform needs to be carefully thought out and it must be agreed upon by the majority of the electorate and its Members of Parliament.
One quick fix solution has been proposed so far but this would lead to disastrous consequences. This is proposal that Scottish members of the national Union Parliament should be debarred from voting on English only matters. However, English MPs would be allowed the dual function of voting for policy regarding England and policy for the whole of the United Kingdom. This proposal is inherently unfair as there would be a conflict of interests. The national UK Parliament should be a separate body from any devolved Parliament for Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or Wales and MPs should be barred from sitting in both the Union Parliament and a devolved national Parliament. This will help to prevent England completely dominating policy for the Union in general.
I am of mixed Welsh and English descent and regard myself as completely British and for me it would be a political tragedy if our Union broke up.
However, I can see why Welsh people will be very upset if they see that England or Scotland get an unfair advantage arising out of a lopsided constitutional settlement. The Welsh may feel that they are better off being independent so there would be further pressure for the Union to break up. And no doubt feelings in Northern Ireland would be similar.
Any constitutional settlement should be equitable so perhaps there should be a fully federal system. One thing is certain; it must be seen to be fair and any promise that is made should be kept. This is no time to worry about how much it might cost either: the future of the British nation is at stake.
There is also another point which advocates for constitutional reform should bear in mind. The Scots and the Welsh are much more in favour of the EU than many English people are. If the whole of the UK votes to withdraw for the EU then Scotland and Wales may wish to retain their membership and this could be another route to the break up of the UK.
The peoples of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have had plenty of time to think of the consequences of devolution and now it is time for the English to get their thinking caps on. It is also time for the English to consider whether they really want to face the future without the rest of the UK, because that would be the consequence of not considering the opinions and feelings of all the British people.
Thursday, 18 September 2014
British membership of the EU
Many British politicians are fundamentally opposed to our membership of the EU or wish to repatriate powers. There is even a movement to provide for a referendum on Britain's continued membership of the EU if the government is unable to repatriate some powers.
Many politicians aver that the European Commission interferes too much in British life and is really in control of British legislation.
I would like to ask this question of these politicians, Why they are so interested in Scotland remaining in the UK? Why have they panicked and decamped to Scotland to campaign for the Union? If the EU Commission controls so much of our life it makes no difference if Scotland is part of the UK or not as we are all powerless.
It is clearly untrue that the EU dominates British life to any real degree. It does not dominate the life of any member state.
I have some questions for the EU sceptics and opponents.
Has the EU said that Britain should be a republic?
Has the EU said that France should become a constitutional monarchy?
Has the EU decided that we cannot have a jury system of justice in our courts?
Has the EU told us how many MPs we can elect to our parliament?
Who decided that we would not send troops to invade Syria? Was it the EU or the UK parliament?
Has the EU told us that we cannot have an established church?
Does the EU decide on the budget for Britain's defence, education and NHS?
Has the EU forced the UK or Denmark or Sweden to join the Euro?
Does the EU decide Britain's interest rates or monetary and fiscal policies?
The EU makes policy and laws on supra-national issues such as ecology, free trade and the movement of goods and services,capital and the movement of people. We freely signed a Treaties to allow the EU to have competence in these areas.
The UK government has the power to veto important measures which mitigate against our interests. All the other states of the EU have this power too.
If the EU gets it wrong it is because our national governments have got it wrong.
If the UK government messes up over domestic policy then it is not the fault of the EU. All the true levers of power related to UK economic and social life lie within the hands of the domestic parliament. It is disingenuous to blame the EU for our domestic problems.
We had a referendum in 1973 to remain a member of the EU and this was meant to be a lifetime agreement. The people of Britain were perfectly capable of deciding the policy for future generations at that time.
If we are to leave then lets leave for a good reason such as the EU dictating how often we have elections or dictating that UK should become a republic. We should not leave because EU food standards dictate that we should put meat in our sausages instead of rusk.
Britain could end up leaving the UK without having discussed all the issues thoroughly. We could leave because some elements of our society are xenophobic.
Britain was not forced to allow Scotland to have a referendum on independence; our parliament made the decision as quite rightly it should.
If Scotland votes "yes" then it could end up waiting a long time before being allowed to join the EU as an independent state.
If Britain votes "no" to Europe then we could end up with both Scotland and the remaining part of UK both being outside the EU. What would both countries do then? Would they re-unite ?
It is probably in the best interests of the UK and Scotland to remain united and to remain in the EU. The EU needs reform and a strong United Kingdom in cooperation with many of our friends in Europe, such as Ireland, could drive that reform to everyone's mutual benefit.
Many politicians aver that the European Commission interferes too much in British life and is really in control of British legislation.
I would like to ask this question of these politicians, Why they are so interested in Scotland remaining in the UK? Why have they panicked and decamped to Scotland to campaign for the Union? If the EU Commission controls so much of our life it makes no difference if Scotland is part of the UK or not as we are all powerless.
It is clearly untrue that the EU dominates British life to any real degree. It does not dominate the life of any member state.
I have some questions for the EU sceptics and opponents.
Has the EU said that Britain should be a republic?
Has the EU said that France should become a constitutional monarchy?
Has the EU decided that we cannot have a jury system of justice in our courts?
Has the EU told us how many MPs we can elect to our parliament?
Who decided that we would not send troops to invade Syria? Was it the EU or the UK parliament?
Has the EU told us that we cannot have an established church?
Does the EU decide on the budget for Britain's defence, education and NHS?
Has the EU forced the UK or Denmark or Sweden to join the Euro?
Does the EU decide Britain's interest rates or monetary and fiscal policies?
The EU makes policy and laws on supra-national issues such as ecology, free trade and the movement of goods and services,capital and the movement of people. We freely signed a Treaties to allow the EU to have competence in these areas.
The UK government has the power to veto important measures which mitigate against our interests. All the other states of the EU have this power too.
If the EU gets it wrong it is because our national governments have got it wrong.
If the UK government messes up over domestic policy then it is not the fault of the EU. All the true levers of power related to UK economic and social life lie within the hands of the domestic parliament. It is disingenuous to blame the EU for our domestic problems.
We had a referendum in 1973 to remain a member of the EU and this was meant to be a lifetime agreement. The people of Britain were perfectly capable of deciding the policy for future generations at that time.
If we are to leave then lets leave for a good reason such as the EU dictating how often we have elections or dictating that UK should become a republic. We should not leave because EU food standards dictate that we should put meat in our sausages instead of rusk.
Britain could end up leaving the UK without having discussed all the issues thoroughly. We could leave because some elements of our society are xenophobic.
Britain was not forced to allow Scotland to have a referendum on independence; our parliament made the decision as quite rightly it should.
If Scotland votes "yes" then it could end up waiting a long time before being allowed to join the EU as an independent state.
If Britain votes "no" to Europe then we could end up with both Scotland and the remaining part of UK both being outside the EU. What would both countries do then? Would they re-unite ?
It is probably in the best interests of the UK and Scotland to remain united and to remain in the EU. The EU needs reform and a strong United Kingdom in cooperation with many of our friends in Europe, such as Ireland, could drive that reform to everyone's mutual benefit.
Thursday, 11 September 2014
Scottish Independence
If I lived in Scotland I would vote "No" to independence. But my support for the Union would be weakened by the intervention of the "big guns".
The IMF have said that an independent Scotland would have an adverse effect on financial markets. This is tosh. The GDP of Scotland is almost a triviality when compared to the the GDP of the World as a whole despite what SNP nationalists might say. Why does the IMF have to open its mouth regarding this issue?
If Scotland votes "Yes" to leave the UK then the rest of us should allow it to use sterling in a currency union as long as there is a treaty to ensure that both sides meet their financial obligations to the union.
Scotland and the rest of the UK should also implement a "Common Travel Area" arrangement similar to that of Britain and Ireland. This would mean that Scots would be allowed to vote in British elections when they live in Britain and Britons would be allowed to vote in Scottish elections when they live in Scotland. We would effectively be common citizens of each other's country- just like the British and the Irish. There is no reason why Scotland could not enter into a similar arrangement with Ireland.
What I am proposing will be to the benefit of all of the nations of the former UK and will lead to continued stability.
This would be the common sense approach advocated by the SNP. However, when was common sense applied to politics? It has not been so often.
All of this common sense may not happen if Scotland wants to join the EU. I fear that an independent Scotland will be forced to go it alone for a while. It will be forced to implement its own currency and then be forced to join the Euro in order to join the EU.
It might be forced to join Schengen like all new entrants to the EU and this would mean border controls with the rest of the UK and Ireland.
Scotland will be a small independent country and its negotiating power with the EU will be weak but this flies in the face of what the SNP says.
There is also the possibility that Spain will veto or delay Scottish membership of the EU to try to deter nationalist movements in Catalonia and the Basque country. Catalonia is due to hold an unofficial referendum on independence in November.
This is not scaremongering as all this could easily happen.
The consequences of this type of foreign pressure, if applied, might lead to the Scots to change their mind after a "Yes" vote. If so, the rest of the UK should accommodate them.
In my opinion it would be marginally better to vote "No".
The IMF have said that an independent Scotland would have an adverse effect on financial markets. This is tosh. The GDP of Scotland is almost a triviality when compared to the the GDP of the World as a whole despite what SNP nationalists might say. Why does the IMF have to open its mouth regarding this issue?
If Scotland votes "Yes" to leave the UK then the rest of us should allow it to use sterling in a currency union as long as there is a treaty to ensure that both sides meet their financial obligations to the union.
Scotland and the rest of the UK should also implement a "Common Travel Area" arrangement similar to that of Britain and Ireland. This would mean that Scots would be allowed to vote in British elections when they live in Britain and Britons would be allowed to vote in Scottish elections when they live in Scotland. We would effectively be common citizens of each other's country- just like the British and the Irish. There is no reason why Scotland could not enter into a similar arrangement with Ireland.
What I am proposing will be to the benefit of all of the nations of the former UK and will lead to continued stability.
This would be the common sense approach advocated by the SNP. However, when was common sense applied to politics? It has not been so often.
All of this common sense may not happen if Scotland wants to join the EU. I fear that an independent Scotland will be forced to go it alone for a while. It will be forced to implement its own currency and then be forced to join the Euro in order to join the EU.
It might be forced to join Schengen like all new entrants to the EU and this would mean border controls with the rest of the UK and Ireland.
Scotland will be a small independent country and its negotiating power with the EU will be weak but this flies in the face of what the SNP says.
There is also the possibility that Spain will veto or delay Scottish membership of the EU to try to deter nationalist movements in Catalonia and the Basque country. Catalonia is due to hold an unofficial referendum on independence in November.
This is not scaremongering as all this could easily happen.
The consequences of this type of foreign pressure, if applied, might lead to the Scots to change their mind after a "Yes" vote. If so, the rest of the UK should accommodate them.
In my opinion it would be marginally better to vote "No".
The Dangers of Interfering in the Middle East
It is an axiom of business that messing up is four times as costly as doing things right in the first place. To fix something that goes wrong will take four times as long as doing the right thing in the first place.
Western nations have been interfering in the Middle East for a century since the Ottoman Empire was defeated in the First World War. Britain and France took over the Middle East to gain access to its riches. The trouble is the British and the French did not understand the culture of the people that lived in the region and made no effort to meet their need for nation states that fitted in with the culture and regional politics. Britain and France divided up nations on the basis of lines in the sand.
It is no wonder that the people of the Levant and the Middle East resented the presence of colonial rule and continue to do so. Britain and France messed it up by creating "unnatural" nation states and supporting dictators. It will take a long time to make reparations. Even though Britain and France have almost withdrawn to the sidelines completely, except in the case of Libya, the USA has stepped into the arena. The USA is, however, continuing with the same failed policies.
The USA is messing up not just in Iraq but in Syria as well. Libya is now in chaos. Britain, France and the USA have set the backdrop for so called "Islamic Terrorism" to thrive. We have supported Saddam Hussein and other dictators only for them to become our enemies. We have supported so called freedom fighters who have turned the weapons that we have supplied them back on us.
Perhaps we should leave the Middle East and the Levant alone and let the nations there re-organise themselves. There is no reason why we cannot give peaceful and neutral help to this process via the United Nations.
I have long admired France, The US and my own nation but I fear that our foreign policy regarding the Middle East and The Levant is compounding the problems rather than solving them.
Western nations have been interfering in the Middle East for a century since the Ottoman Empire was defeated in the First World War. Britain and France took over the Middle East to gain access to its riches. The trouble is the British and the French did not understand the culture of the people that lived in the region and made no effort to meet their need for nation states that fitted in with the culture and regional politics. Britain and France divided up nations on the basis of lines in the sand.
It is no wonder that the people of the Levant and the Middle East resented the presence of colonial rule and continue to do so. Britain and France messed it up by creating "unnatural" nation states and supporting dictators. It will take a long time to make reparations. Even though Britain and France have almost withdrawn to the sidelines completely, except in the case of Libya, the USA has stepped into the arena. The USA is, however, continuing with the same failed policies.
The USA is messing up not just in Iraq but in Syria as well. Libya is now in chaos. Britain, France and the USA have set the backdrop for so called "Islamic Terrorism" to thrive. We have supported Saddam Hussein and other dictators only for them to become our enemies. We have supported so called freedom fighters who have turned the weapons that we have supplied them back on us.
Perhaps we should leave the Middle East and the Levant alone and let the nations there re-organise themselves. There is no reason why we cannot give peaceful and neutral help to this process via the United Nations.
I have long admired France, The US and my own nation but I fear that our foreign policy regarding the Middle East and The Levant is compounding the problems rather than solving them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
