Global Britain

“Aircraft Carrier sent to Pacific in show of strength to China” read the headline in the Times yesterday, previewing a speech by the Secretary of State for Defence to the Royal United Services Institution on 11 February 2019.  Gavin Williamson began by asking, “why do we fight” - perhaps he thought his RUSI audience would not know.  But, fortunately, he didn’t wait for an answer before stating that “it is fundamentally, to protect our people, protect our interests, and, of course, to defend Britain.”  He went on, “as a nation, we’ve never shied away from acting even if that has meant standing alone as we did in the darkest hours of the Second World War.”  Punchy and inspiring Churchillian stuff and it would have been even nicer if could have sung along as well:

We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do,
We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too,

Except we all know that wouldn’t be true Gav.  For a start we haven’t got the ships (or aircraft or tanks for that matter) to make a difference.  The crass military stupidity of provoking China by sending a (relatively) undefended carrier into the disputed waters of the South China Sea beggars belief. Way back in 1974, looking for drug smugglers over the South China Sea, I was always very wary of approaching any island in case I was shot at at random. Similarly Defence Chiefs must have advised him that China has more than enough capability to deal the Queen Elizabeth should things kick off and get out of hand.  This is not a deterrent but it is, in the classic words of Cook and Moore, “a futile gesture at this stage.”  As for the boasts about our international defence standing, much has been made of the UK defence industrial capability in the past but as we become a net importer of defence equipment perhaps it is time to modify the rhetoric?

Turning to the men, if may call them men these days, we don’t seem to have enough.  Army recruiting, hopelessly mismanaged by Capita, is dangerously short of requirements.   Retention bonusses have worked for a while in the RAF but they cannot go on for ever and light blue will face increasing capability-threatening shortages in key roles in the years to come.  RN recruiting difficulties have been well documented recently with one senior Officer lamenting that recruiting was down because “being in the RN wasn’t fun anymore.”  Quite so, having sat through hours of management speak from various senior RAF Officers I wouldn’t be surprised if being pilot in the RAF was exactly a bundle of laughs either.

And the money?  Against the backdrop of the Chancellor's budget-balancing plan all but torn-up and the MOD facing a £10 billion black hole in its 10-year equipment plan, Gav’s £150 million “Transformation Fund,” is not going to go far.  However, rather like the “peace dividend” before it, the magic money tree of the Transformation Fund will doubtless come to the rescue of various political expediencies as they arise in the future – announce once, spend many times over.

Undeterred by reality, Gav went on to say remind us that, “the UK is a global power with truly global interests.”  He then banged on about the size of our economy, defence budget and defence exports (see above).  “Global Britain,” apparently, is more than a pithy phrase – it means action and independent action at that, if necessary!

All of this is very interesting in the context of the latest discussion brief of the Conservative Policy Forum, which, amongst other things, asks members, “what should a Conservative-led UK Government seek to achieve in the world?”  We may be forgiven for asking the basis for this enquiry.  After all, it was only in July last year, in the forward to “The Future Relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU,” that the Prime Minister defined Britain’s place in the world thus:

“We are an outward-facing, trading nation; we have a dynamic, innovative economy; and we live by common values of openness, the rule of law, and tolerance of others.”

You may agree that should Mrs May’s “Remain Minus” deal be accepted, the would be nothing much outward facing about our trading arrangements. As to innovation, we should, of course, be subject to level playing field caveats, subtly inserted, to ensure one European size fits all.  Neither should our values be our own since we should almost certainly have to cede further sovereignty concessions and maybe even free movement during further, undefined, negotiation on the future relationship.  And its worth reminding ourselves that the price of entering this pig in a poke auction is, at least, a cool £39 billion.

All of which is somewhat at odds with Gav’s vision of not just Global Britain but truly Global Britain, striding the world stage dispensing good and justice to the general benefit of mankind.  How will that square with the nobody Federica Mogherini’s infatuation with nuclear menacing Iran or Russia and her shocking disregard for the international order?  We may be paying a (pathetic) 2% of GDP into the NATO budget and that may be considerably more than the others, particularly the sanctimonious Germans, but that won’t cut much ice in Washington and we’ll end up doing just exactly as we are told.

But even if we do leave the EU and manage, miraculously, to fulfil the vision in:

“leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union, ending free movement and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in this country, leaving the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, and ending the days of sending vast sums of money to the EU every year. We will take back control of our money, laws, and borders, and begin a new exciting chapter in our nation’s history.”

it would be heady stuff indeed but one really must question the optimism therein.  With a Foreign & Commonwealth Office bereft of its heritage intellect, emasculated armed forces, a squabbling and discredited political class, a population obsessed with rights rather than obligations, an indiscriminate foreign aid budget out of step with foreign policy (where it exists) and, above all, a declinist-centred education system ensuring that future generations are deeply ashamed of everything this Nation has accomplished in the past, the future looks bleak.  That said, there is a glimmer of hope.  Just suppose, following a no deal exit, we suddenly must stand on our own feet again and make our own way in the world once again?  Quite a shock but what an opportunity that could be?