“History repeats itself; first as tragedy, then as farce”
Karl Marx
WHEN IT COMES TO DEFENCE CUTS, it just will not do for this Coalition to blame the previous government for the public service cuts and hope this argument will stand the time of this parliament. The necessary cuts to public expenditure have to take place if we are to continue amongst the world’s leading economies; and only a fool would wish to argue otherwise.
We are in a terrible mess, and who put us in it is now irrelevant. It is irrelevant because we still have choices to make about where the cuts will fall. It is now about the priorities of necessity. Which means we must protect those parts the of the public purse that are invaluable to this nation’s sovereignty: and so accordingly, it is the first duty of any government to protect their country and its citizens, and therefore defence should be the number one priority: and if ring-fencing is to be applied, then can anyone suggest to me why our nation’s defences should be excluded? Especially when our international aid budget is being ring-fenced and we are now about to give into European demands for an increase in our contribution to the EU’s budget.
“Defence reviews” have always been used as a synonym for defence cuts by politicians. As we all remember (or those of us over forty), John Knott, the then Defence Secretary under Margaret Thatcher was about to cull our armed forces when, out of the blue, we found ourselves at war with Argentina. At the time many people believed that the Falkland Isles were somewhere off the coast of Scotland, and Argentina’s claim to them laughable.
In other words an armed conflict occurred that was never seen on the radar by the politicians or the military. It just happened out of the blue to challenge John Knott’s strategic defence review which was based upon Cold War strategic thinking – a strategic thinking that at the time our politicians had no idea that, in just over a decade, communism would put up its hands and surrender.
The future is difficult to predict and so defence reviews are in a way a gamble - like the weekly lottery. To pretend that those conducting such a review have an insight into the future that us ordinary mortals do not have, is belied by history – a much abused subject in today’s schools.
I have written other pieces on my blog about the waste at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and this needs to be seen to - especially the policy of procurement and its criminal waste of public resources. Resources that could be delivered much more cheaply, if the nation’s defences, instead of British jobs commanded priority.
There is much that needs to be trimmed from the MoD budget, from procurement to civil servants with their Gold Plated pensions to fall back on. But we must protect, and if necessary, expand our military capability.
WHAT IS NOW BEING PROPOSED, if the reports in today’s papers are correct, is the almost treasonable proposition of ordering such a diminishing capability of our armed forces, that our citizens, living as they are on an island, and having been heavily reliant as an island nation upon our navy, are now to expect from our politicians the ultimate betrayal.
The expected military shrinkage, especially in the navy’s capability, leaves this nation without any influence in the world. We can no longer be expected to be listened to by other nations who will now perceive us as a nation in decomposition.
Our once considered Rolls Royce Foreign Office will be diminished by these cuts to the MoD. Why, after all, should we be taken seriously by any nation if we sever so ruthlessly our once proud backbone.
This Coalition has made its choices. It has announced its ring-fenced priorities which excludes our nation’s defences. In so doing it cannot blame the last government for what it now seeks to do.
I am no fan of the last government. Indeed, at the age of 60, I voted for the Tories for the first time in my life having been a life-long Labour supporter. But there are limits to what you can attribute your actions to regarding any previous government. After-all, as I said above, there are choices to be made, and this government has chosen to ring-fence oversees aid instead of defence. This Coalition government cannot blame its predecessors for what amounts to the unrecoverable diminution of this nation’s defences.
IT IS MY VEIW THAT what this Coalition is seeking to do, is to entwine our nation’s armed forces into those of the rest of Europe. We are being herded as a people into the much denied Federal States of Europe. Why, for instance, would we dismantle our defences to such a state as this “review” suggests. We are about to rid the navy of HMS Ark Royal. It has been suggested that the two new carriers built to replace her will be built with the possibility of one of them being sold. While the other will fly either American or French aircraft from its decks.
What a state of affairs we, a once proud nation find itself in. I believe the reason for such a meagre and miserable betrayal of our national identity, is that this Coalition is set to deliver our military defence capability to a European armed force. This is why this Coalition appears so sanguine about what is to happen regarding our nation’s defences.
For the Coalition are 90% Europhiles who will happily give our nation’s autonomy over to the most undemocratic system of government since that of communism.
I find it extraordinary that the Right-wing press and its many commentators still find David Cameron one of them. But sadly they will find out for themselves the awful truth – eventually. I, for instance, was enthralled to Tony Blair after so many years of Tory advance in Government and I suspect that David Cameron is enjoying the same support among Right of centre commentators.
THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY today is a mere parvenu of its former historical self. This great party has finally displaced its authority as the guardian of nationhood and delivered the country it sought keep alive, to Europe.
We no longer boast an independence backed up by our armed forces. Our nationhood has been replaced by an ever greater dependence upon the rest of Europe: and this, I believe, is what was always intended by the Conservative element of this Coalition.
David Cameron is as much a social democrat as most parties are within Europe. British Conservatism in the European context means very little to its historical identity as the party of “nationalism” .
Modern Conservatism is a mere replica of modern Labour or Liberal Democrat. We seem to live in a political system where differences are, at their most radical unprincipled.
The ring-fenced oversees aid budget must not be allowed to continue in such straightened times. We should also not countenance any kind of increase to our contribution to the European budget. If prime minister Cameron accedes to this command, especially from the Union, then he must explain himself to the nation in the light of his proposed defence cuts.
Our nation’s shield are our defences; our defences are our shell and must be continually improved upon in the interest of the people whom our politicians say they represent. Above all other interests of government it is the protection of its people that has to be put before all else. For it the country’s survival as a sovereign nation that must always remain preeminent. If in these dire financial times if the verb to ring-fence is used, then our nation’s defences must have first priority.
No comments:
Post a Comment