Meanwhile, We Have a Referendum to Think About

With the Greek debt crisis solved until the next one, we can turn our attention back to the more personal issue of Britain's membership of the EU.  With the European democratic deficit firmly in the electorate's mind and the latest sleight to UK independence, news that, indifferent to previous undertakings, the European Commission proposes to use The European Financial Stabilisation  Mechanism to provide emergency funding to Greece, one might expect that the PM would feel his negotiating  position somewhat strengthened.  But will he use it?

I remain highly suspicious of the negotiating strategy.  I hope I am wrong but I believe the PM is pre-disposed to stay in the EU and intent upon delivering a compromise, the best result possible, rather than the optimum, best possible result.  The best possible result will not be achieved by adjusting the existing deck chairs!  Having just witnessed the astonishing semantic contortions and financial deceits being brought into play to save the Euro (sorry Greece), I am not at all confident that the Government will find the strength to stand up to the Euro Technocracy and negotiate a lasting settlement that will save our Nation from the EU economic and social spiral of decline.

If I was asked to vote today it would be a resounding NO!  On the other hand, if a binding settlement could be achieved that satisfied the following then I could be persuaded to change my mind:

•          A "no ifs, no buts" guarantee that there would be no obligation to further political union.  Indeed, a negotiated trading relationship with the EU that excluded political union would be preferable
•        Complete control over our borders.  This is the only way in which we could keep control of economic and social fabric and ensure that our inexorable population growth could be managed
•         Democratic accountability, particularly over the EU budget.  I am particularly fearful of the increasing tendency for government by the EU technocracy
•         Judicial autonomy ie whatever it takes to put our Courts and Legislature back in charge of our own justice system
•         A commitment to Free Trade.  All the facts point to an EU in decline as a trading bloc because of bureaucratic inertia on protectionist jealousies.  We need complete trading freedom, both of goods and services together with complete overhaul of restrictive cartels such as the CAP, Fisheries Policy and the emerging Energy surrender.  There must also be national autonomy in terms of the Social Chapter, Working Time Directive and other EU red-tape etc.

 So come on Prime Minister and do not be deterred by the Euro propensity for zero-sum compromise - it we don't ask, we certainly will not get!  

Greek Tragedy Continues

No doubt the Euro elite will be congratulating themselves on reaching a deal that saves the Euro (sorry Greece). Although the elephant in the room, the unmanageable burden of debt, gets a mention there is hardly a commitment from the Euro hard-men to do anything about it. Meantime, Greece will have to put up with draconian cuts, intimate external supervision and an effective loss of sovereignty.  It is hard to see envisage any positive impact upon unemployment and relative depravation and one wonders just how long the Greek people will be prepared to put up with their subjugated status.  History tells us that the harsh terms imposed upon Germany by the victors in 1919 prepared the ground for another European catastrophe.  Let us hope that, in their determination to save their currency, the Euro elite have not made another Versailles!

Greece

As another final deadline approaches, a helpful intervention from Mr Obama and Frau Merkel - "it is in everyone's interest to reach a durable agreement that will allow Greece to resume reforms, return to growth, and achieve debt sustainability within the eurozone."  Quite, but I wonder if "everyone," in this more of the same package, includes the hapless Greek people?

A Timely Bandwagon

Yesterday I appealed for members of principle to stand up for defence and expose the deceit of budget manipulation.  But principle may no longer be necessary to do the right thing!  In the nick of time, a brightly painted bandwagon has rolled up in the shape of a PwC survey, "Forces for Change."  Unsurprisingly, you may agree, 53% of us wish to see defence expenditure rise whilst a mere 6% want to see the budget cut.  Maybe there are votes in defence after all?

Defence Deceit

Armed Forces Day, a chance to show your support for the men and women who make up the Armed Forces "community," is only a couple of weeks away.  How reassuring, meantime, to witness the splendour of Trooping the Colour or, perhaps, an early seasonal glimpse of the always excellent Red Arrows?

Indeed, in the Sunday Telegraph, an MOD spokesman is quoted:

"The Government is committed to spending 2 percent of GDP on defence this financial year.  Over the next decade we are committed to spending £163 billion on equipment and equipment support to keep Britain safe and right now we are deployed around the world on more than 20 operations."

How odd, therefore, that yet another collection of defence experts warn that "UK is feeble in the face of threats from around the world."  Parallels with the 1930s, when Britain failed to prepare for combat, are being drawn.  Actually, £16 billion a year on kit is not a great deal, particularly the way the cost of defence equipment is escalating (and if it includes Trident replacement).  Further, perhaps they should list the 20 overseas operations so that we might be able to judge the scale of involvement.  But, who can be right and, if it is the Government that is being economical with the truth, who in Westminster is calling them to account?

Let us first be clear about the concept of 2% of GDP.  Historically, we have seldom spent less than 2% of our GDP on defence.  Indeed, during the Cold War, we spent about 4% and who could argue that the security situation is any better today?  Also, we really need to be measuring defence outcomes (capability) not a pot of cash.  However, 2% is still a useful yardstick since it represents our membership fee to NATO, the organisation that guarantees our collective security.  The 2% is not, therefore, a target - it is a highly significant demonstration of our determination to defend ourselves and our interests properly - the premium we pay to insure our safety.  Today, through accounting smoke and mirrors, by adding in Armed Forces Pension payments and nuclear deterrent costs, for example, we may scrape over the line.  As the squeeze bites, matters become presentationally more difficult, hence the brilliant wheeze to include some overseas aid as defence expenditure.  But people in the know know that our defence expenditure as a share of GDP will fall to 1.7%, if not lower, if the present squeeze continues.  This will reduce or forces to ceremonial status.  We will be unable to field an independent fighting unit in coalition operations and our much vaunted carriers will be so vulnerable that they dare not be risked on operations, even if they should be effective with their small numbers of sub-optimal aircraft (if and when they are delivered).  Already, our US allies value the French contribution above ours and regularly seek their military council ahead of UKs.  Our international reputation does not match the Prime Minister's bluster.

It is inconceivable that the PM is not aware of the parlous state of our Armed Forces or the grave risks he is running in refusing to fund them adequately.  "Look," (have you noticed how politicians always preface a dodgy denial with "look") there are no votes in defence.  We ran a successful election campaign without mention defence once - the public don't care.  I can rob the defence budget to buy the votes of the people who really matter!"  There was, perhaps, a glimmer of hope when Rory Stewart was appointed chair of the Defence Select Committee.  However, realising how inconvenient his voice might have been, the Prime Minister has quickly moved him on to the Department of the Environment where, presumably, his potentially heretical views can be kept in check.

So who is going to stand up for defence?  Where are the MPs with principles (I don't mind from which side of the House)?  Who will expose the deceit behind the defence numbers?

I have said before that I do not wish to belong to a Conservative Party that does not believe in defence.