The Talking Clock is an opinion based, independently authored, small 'c' conservative, libertarian blog.
"The laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof; and all the kings and queens, who shall ascend the throne of this realm, ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws; and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively, according to the same." Act of Settlement, 1700/01
"And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm." Bill of Rights, 1689 - an important and still exisiting part of OUR both written and unwritten English constitution
You know, I think the madman dictator of Libya - the murderous Colonel Gaddafi - has done us all a favour, though probably an unintended one on his part.
Before this unjustified military action in Libya, most people had not been exposed to the truth about Al Qaida.
We had the rather strange and baffling dissolving buildings that were hit by supposedly hijacked aeroplanes on 9/11... and that was probably the first time most people had heard of this 'Al Qaida'.
We then saw a mass of attacks on our civil liberties at home because of the threat posed by 'Al-Qaida'.
Then, lo and behold, there was terror on the streets of London... after which, Robin Cook went public and revealed the nature of 'Al-Qaida'. Most probably didn't read it. He died while walking in the woods mountains shortly afterwards.
Many more civil liberty erosions (plus the cold blooded murder of a Brazilian electrician or so) later - which have been particularly harsh on anyone who owns a camera or who wishes to board an aeroplane without having their genitals fondled and what do we have?
Libya. A country to whom very recently we were selling weapons.
Our governments - which want to spy on us and have us submit to having random strangers inserting fingers into our anus at airports - we know, are even now talking of providing weapons to the 'Al-Qaida' linked "rebels" in Libya's civil war. Yup, our governments - which have removed our civil liberties in the name of 'Al-Qaida' want to give arms and weapons to... 'Al-Qaida' (a CIA creation).
So, global government backs arming terrorists who are directly or indirectly responsible for deaths all over the world - but especially in New York (9/11), London (7/7) and Madrid. Read the report. It's all there. Not making this up.
And it will remain forever more. It's now in the Hansard record of Parliamentary debate.
Yes, even our witless, clueless, completely unsuitable for purpose House of Commons is starting to ask questions:
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Why cannot the Government be clear about not rearming the insurgent groups in Libya now that the NATO commander has testified to the US Senate that he cannot rule out infiltration by al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups? As an historian, the Foreign Secretary knows that in the 1980s another ally-America-decided to arm Osama bin Laden to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and now British troops are dying on the mountains of Afghanistan because of that error. Don't repeat it.
Here comes the confession in response (our emphasis)...
Mr Hague: I shall put the hon. Gentleman down as being opposed to the arming of the rebels-but he must not get too excited about things that we have not done. Such questions of advisability are the very questions that would need to be assessed. As I have said, if we changed our policy on this we would say so to the House, and we would then be able to debate that. The hon. Gentleman is right that in history there are examples-more than the one example he gave-of weapons being given to people in good faith and then being used at a later stage for other purposes that their original owners had not desired. That is one of the considerations that have to be borne in mind.
More questions...
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): May I urge the Foreign Secretary to resist the siren calls of the shadow Foreign Secretary about looking at the backgrounds and links of the people operating in Libya as insurgents? Otherwise we shall be accused of picking favourites.
And more...
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): I strongly agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary and his measured words, and urge extreme caution on my right hon. Friend. Would it not be a double win for al-Qaeda, and would we not start losing support in the Arab world, if we were seen to impose a solution on Libya and at the same time give arms to people who could prove to be Islamist insurgents in the future?
Yet more questions...
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): May I pay tribute to the work that our servicemen and women-the RAF and the Navy-are doing once again on our behalf and the way in which they are carrying out those operations, minimising civilian casualties? We endorse the careful and cautious approach of the Foreign Secretary and the Government because of the concerns about al-Qaeda. Will the Foreign Secretary address the issue that was raised earlier about the role of fighters from eastern Libya in Afghanistan and elsewhere? What knowledge can he bring to the House about that and the role of al-Qaeda links in Libya today?
Followed by one of the most laughably pathetic answers in the history of Parliamentary democracy in England:
Mr Hague: I am grateful, as the whole House will be, for the reaffirmation from all sides of support for the work of our armed forces. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to refer to that, but I cannot give him specific information about people in eastern Libya fighting in Afghanistan. As he knows, there are fighters in Afghanistan on the Taliban side drawn from a wide area around the world, but it would not be accurate to represent the eastern part of Libya as a major factor in that or a major area for the recruitment of such people. As I say, it would be most accurate to place the accent on the positive and democratic side of the opposition in Libya rather than on any other side.
Got all that?
So, what's the big chip on my shoulder?
Well, apologies and all that, but I do not like 'Al-Qaida'.
I'm more than appalled and disgusted to find that 'Al-Qaida' - responsible for deaths of my countrymen - are funded and supported by our own governments... indeed were created by them.
In that light, it is outrageous that our civil liberties have been eroded under the useful bogeyman that is 'Al-Qaida'. We should demand every last letter of our liberties to be restored to pre-2001 levels forthwith.
And, while it pains me to say this, the deaths we saw in London, New York and Madrid at the hands - directly or indirectly - of 'Al-Qaida' and their sympathisers... well, I don't blame a swivel-eyed loon in a third world cave.
As we can see clearly, those to blame are those who created this alleged 'Al-Qaida'... our own governnments.
Instead of packing this outrage in, we're talking of ARMING our enemy 'Al-Qaida' (while also fighting a war on their behalf).
A silent assassination took place at Westminster yesterday.
While the ridiculous loon that is Ed Miliband humiliated himself and the Labour cause at Hyde Park on Saturday, a much quieter and more dignified politician delicately placed the poisoned dagger into the heart of the Conservative Party - inflicting a fatal wound, from which, the party may never recover.
Yes, we're talking about the carefully placed words of former Chancellor Alistair Darling. Quoting him directly from Hansard:
Mr Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West) (Lab): Does the Prime Minister accept that when he referred to the discussions that took place last May on the eurozone fund he gave a somewhat incomplete account of my conversation with the now Chancellor? We did indeed agree that we should do everything we could to keep Britain out of the main part of the rescue fund, but in relation to the smaller element to which the Prime Minister refers, what we discussed was not voting against, but abstention, recognising that Britain could have been outvoted-that is exactly the same thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to when dealing with Ireland. So when the Prime Minister next refers to this issue, perhaps he would give the whole account, not a partial account, of what happened.
Much has been made by Cameron and Osborne of that quiet deal, made when the coalition government was forming in dodgy deals in darkened corridors, in which Alistair Darling signed we, the people up to giving billions upon billions upon billions to collapsed EU economies. It's all a wicked Labour betrayal, the Tory twosome have proclaimed often and loudly.
There seems to be a discrepancy in the account of what actually went on - an intrigue that deepens when looking at what is known by the press.
EU-sceptic conservative MP Douglas Carswell is demanding answers. He has been trying to secure those answers via a Freedom of Information request, but getting nowhere fast.
The Prime Minister told the Commons today that he and his team had opposed the Euro bail out Mechanism deal negotiated by Alistair Darling, the out going Chancellor, last May. He was repeating what the Chancellor, George Osborne, told me when he said he had opposed it.
Yet Treasury minister, Justine Greening, sent MPs a memo on July 15th last year that stated "whilst agreement on behalf of the UK was given by the previous administration, cross-party consensus had been gained".
They cannot all be right. We need clarification.
To make matters worse, the judiciary has hit back at the rhetoric that seeks to point an accusing finger at judges over the application of 'human rights' law which has angered many sections of the British people.
As is pointed out in a separate Daily Telegraph report: "Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, said it is a result of the actions of the UK parliament that judges must abide by rulings from European courts whether they “agree with them or not”."
The relentless rubber-stamping of EU directives is quite separate from the EU 'human rights' issue - but has continued without decline under the current administration.
Indeed, on a vast array of areas, the current Conservative-LibDem coalition is more europhile than even the last Labour government and has signed up to a whole plethora of EU schemes which infringe deeply upon our long established freedoms and liberties.
In that, we must also finger LibDem leader Nick Clegg. He talks a big game when it comes to freedom, liberty and democracy... yet is a quisling representative of the European Union which seeks to destroy our long established system of freedoms and liberties and is the most anti-democratic system of governance imaginable.
You definitely cannot trust labour...
You absolutely cannot trust the Liberal Democrats...
And you can't trust the Tories on national sovereignty.
See also: Open Europe - Darling Drops A Bomb BBC News - Cameron 'frustrated' at EU bail-out obligations
Before entering into the main thrust of this post, we are probably duty-bound to state that it is a requirement by law (statute actually) for you to complete and return your census form.
However, over the last two weeks, we've run a poll on this site to find out exactly how many of you intend to do just that.
Only 11.3% of you say that you will fill in your census form truthfully.
A much bigger number - 42.9% - say they will fill it in, but complete it with 'lots of lies'. This blog included that option having seen lots of evidence on the internet, across a diverse array of websites, saying that people were intending to do just that.
Yet an even bigger number still - 45.8% - say that they will not return the form at all... risk of fine or not.
Clearly, looking at those who will fill the form in, four out of five people - 79.1% of these people - say they intend to return a form that contains falsehoods or inaccuracies.
Should that happen, a statistician has no hope of producing a credible picture of Britain from the results. Put junk in, get junk out.
But what of those who say they will refuse to fill the form in? Why would they intend to do so, irrespective of the risk?
There is little doubt that the census form this time is one of the most intrusive ever and there is much discussion - from The Guardian to Big Brother Watch - about the specific intrusiveness of some of the questions.
There can be little doubt that, after the nightmare Orwellian database state imposed by New Labour - complete with repeated stories of widespread data loss - these are factors in people's considerations.
Yet one of the biggest motivators for people to decide to wish to break the law is seemingly the use of Lockheed Martin as a data processing contractor.
The Office of National Statistics has played a good game of trying to differentiate between Lockheed Martin in the UK and it's American mother.
However, people are not convinced and there is strong evidence that a great number of people do not want to and will not be party to aiding in the profits of an arms manufacturer which also provides intelligence services to the American government.
Whoever made the decision to reward Lockheed Martin with something as sensitive as this census really does need to ask themselves what they were thinking. Surely, they must have known that people were likely to object?
There can also be little doubt that a proportion of the population are feeling disenfranchised and powerless. They see the census as an opportunity to rebel against a state which does not represent their wishes.
One suspects that this group of people is a very different group from that which chose to smash up Central London yesterday and see the census as the thinking man's opportunity to refuse to comply with a state which lacks legitimacy.
So the stage is set for a battle of wills.
The Office of National Statistics has been spinning like mad, press releases have clearly been sent to the national newspapers detailing how an 'army of enforcers', complete with former policemen, will be pacing the streets looking to catch you at home and elicit your complicity.
We are told that people will be interviewed under caution and that we will be fined.
At the other end of the scale, local authorities have sent letters out to people (whose names they already know, as opposed to 'The Occupier') pleading with people to fill the form in, saying that their funding depends on it.
Naturally, such a carrot and stick approach would not be necessary unless it was well known that a large number of people would refuse to comply.
And that number who will refuse is, according to our poll, 45.8%.
It would be ludicrous to victimise this group with hounding when a very similar number, 42.9%, will return the form and subvert the process by returning a form full of half truths, inaccuracies or blatant lies.
The big question is what kind of country have we become when the census will only be willingly returned by 11.3% of people?
All of the threats of fines and compliance officers making home calls, gathering evidence, cautions and criminal records... and still barely one-in-ten people intend giving in or willingly returning the form.
Something has gone seriously wrong, we would suggest, in the relationship between the state and the people.
I think what we are seeing here, with the census, is a symptom of something much more serious.
There is something strangely schizophrenic about this country - or the people who claim to speak up for it.
On the one hand, they are criticising 'the rebels' who have smashed Central London up while also supporting the arming and aiding of 'the rebels' (Al Qaeda) in Libya.
There is much talk about the violent scenes that have been witnessed throughout the day lacking any democratic legitimacy and, instead, being nothing more than criminality.
It is possible to have limited sympathy with both sides on this point, I guess.
On the one hand, the establishment expects people to remain peaceful at all times and simply to change a government every five years by marking an 'X' on a piece of paper.
However, as we have seen, for a long many years those 'X' marks on ballot papers count for little. Once elected, politicians of every hue - Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat - do something different from what they promised in their manifesto.
So, one of the questions that needs to be asked in light of the Battle of Trafalgar Square is this: How does one hold the government to account when voting them out and putting someone else in changes nothing? It actually, most of the time, simply means different people carrying out the same 'policies'.
European Union, illegal wars... and don't let the Labour and TUC lot fool you; if they were in power, they would have to address the perilous state of the national economy - a result of the mismanagement of... the Labour Party, funded by the trade unions. The country is almost one TRILLION pound in 'debt'.
Labour and the TUC are doing nothing about the amount of money we are giving to the EU... Labour were one of the biggest architects of treachery against this country. We give the anti-democratic organisation £50million A DAY.
We are giving BILLIONS to bail out Greece, Ireland, and very soon Portugal.
We send hundreds of millions of pounds abroad in international aid.
The banks were given billions upon billions upon billions (by Labour's Gordon Brown) to bail them out after their mismanagement virtually brought the country to bankruptcy... and those same banks are still crucifying their customers in every way possible.
We're paying people hundreds of millions of pounds to shut down our industry and export it to India in the name of 'man made global warming'.
Now, many of the people who support those madcap schemes are the same people protesting about "the cuts". Well, what do these people want? How can we possibly afford all of these madcap schemes? The EU, the illegal wars, the banks, the 'climate change' con...
And it does not matter who you vote for - all of the Lib / Lab / Con pursue the same policies of the EU, the illegal wars, the banks and the 'climate change' con.
In those circumstances, where the politicians are clearly liars, crooks and traitors, can violence be justified? What is the population to do when the politicians do whatever they want, irrespective of their promises?
That said, how do we know who the people were who were engaged in the violence today? What motivated them? What was their agenda? What do they have an issue with? We don't know... we just saw people in hoods, helmets and bandannas smashing things up.
Our police have apparently decided that people will not occupy Trafalgar Square overnight. Why have they made that choice? What does that say about the nature of freedom in the United Kingdom?
We're bombing Libya to allow people (Al Qaeda) to rebel and find their 'will' represented democratically.
Yet as we have seen for a great many years, democracy has little to recommend it.
Democracy, in the United Kingdom, means voting once every five years for one of three main parties who continue the exact same policies as the party that they spent all of their time in opposition opposing.
Nobody emerges from today particularly well and the scenes that we have witnessed on our TV screens - those of us who stayed at home - and the country has much to reflect on.
I most particularly think that the politicians have a lot to think over.
No-one more than the Labour Party. It was their march that descended into violence.
Let us remember, as soon as they lost the General Election, they promised us - through their socialist friends and the unions - a great period of civil disobedience and direct action.
But the hypocrisy of the Labour Party and the unions is astonishing.
They put this country into this mess. They don't want any medicine whatsoever. They would have no choice but to follow some of the exact same policies as the government to try to prevent the country going bankrupt.
You've got Ed Miliband, Labour leader, up on a platform in Hyde Park trying to associate his TUC marchers and their violent tag-along 'anarchists' as being akin to some of the great social injustice movements of history. He is a hypcritical idiot, not a visionary. He inspires no-one to nothing. He's a prize pratt with a traitor for a brother - that is all.
And, in and amongst all of this, those of us who support none of the three main parties - because we have woken up - are utterly powerless.
All I can say as this day draws to a close is this:
...so can we have a United Nations imposed no-fly zone over the United Kingdom, already?
UPDATE 2 at 21:58: Sorry, but the police are losing it. They should leave the sit-in protestors at Trafalgar Square alone. Pictures of hundreds of them throwing punches at protestors being beamed all around the world via Sky News. Their support from me will turn into a strong dislike if they stop people's right to sit in.
Chris Doherty, BBC Engineer on phone to BBC News: "It was a peaceful mood until police moved in [to Trafalgar Square]. I'm not sure why that's happened."
Twitter is full of: "Unconfirmed reports that forces loyal to Cameron are attacking rebels in Trafalgar square."
22.30: Very strange live picture blackout on Sky News and BBC News now. What are we not being allowed to see?
Afternoon: To be honest, from what I'm seeing on Sky News, the police appear to be behaving reasonably okay. I can't say I have too much criticism of what I'm seeing from them. From what we're seeing.
But to round-up where we are so far, the Labour Party went out and did their tribal nonsense enmasse and that appears to have been followed by about a few dozen crusty types and teenagers who are doing something chavvy, except not hanging round in provincial shopping centres to do it.
Violence? Never particularly condone it. Don't agree with smashing things up. Though it is tempting to have a small modicum of sympathy and quiet applause for those who smashed banks up a bit. They can afford it. They've got our money, after all. Billions upon billions upon billions of it. The bank are bigger criminals than a few old crusty types, a few spotty chavs, and some supposed 'anarchists'.
Thus asked a presenter of Sky News of a TUC organiser just now.
That question - that sense - is why I'm sat safely at home, watching it on the telly.
Apart from a few side events, the whole thing isn't a real protest by the people.
It's a march organised by the Labour Party's paymasters, with people marching to protest against "the cuts" - though most admitting on Sky News that they just think "the cuts" shouldn't be so deep and severe.
To them I ask... name a single solitary one of "the cuts" that you have experienced or know about..?
I can name a bus route in Somerset. That's all I know about. And as I only get to Glastonbury very infrequently...
...the message of this protest march is misguided. They could have garnered far more support had the Labour Party paymaster taken a much lower profile and had the message been a more unifying message.
Still, I will concede that it is nice to see an estimated 250,000 people taking to the streets to make their voices heard and I genuinely applaud that - no matter how little I find moving in their central message.
If I was Prime Minister? I would cut the £50 million a day we give to the European Union.
If I was Prime Minister? I would not have given all that bailout billions to Greece and Ireland.
If I was Prime Minister? I would have let the banks collapse and not given them billions and billions.
If I was Prime Minister? I would not have spent all that money on two illegal wars.
If I was Prime Minister? I would not have sold off the nation's gold reserves at rock bottom prices.
If I was Prime Minister? I would not have paid multi-million pound sums to globalists for them to close down our industry and export it to cheaper labour in India under the guise of 'man made global warming'. We would still have an industry. And I would reward and enable the manufacturing sector.
If I was Prime Minister? I would not have given entitlements to welfare benefits, housing or free NHS services to immigrants... not until people had paid a minimum of two years National Insurance contributions and tax.
So, there's some of my alternative to "the cuts" in there.
And all of those things which have cost this country dear happened on Labour's watch. They're not best placed to talk about the economy really, are they?
So, London braces itself for the biggest protest on the streets since the Iraq War tomorrow.
Those wanting detail of who is protesting about what and where would be best served by looking at this article in The Guardian.
Much of what is planned is union-backed and aimed at complaining at "the cuts".
So, for those who are going to protest at "the cuts", a few issues.
Firstly, which of "the cuts" are you moaning at and how would NOT spending £50 million a day on our membership of the European Empire assist you?
How many of "the cuts" could we prevent if we did not have to find £6 billion to bailout Portugal?
How many of "the cuts" could have been prevented had we not bailed out Greece and Ireland?
How many of "the cuts" could have been prevented if we had allowed Northern Rock, RBS and Lloyds TSB go to the wall, refusing to give them billions upon billions upon billions, and then rebuilt our banking system along a different model than the current fraudulent fractional reserve banking fairytale?.
Against this background, the little piggies at the Westminster trough are not all in this together.
The Independent reports that: "MPs will each be eligible to claim up to £6,000 more for accommodation, travel and staffing costs from next month under controversial plans to relax the rules of the new parliamentary expenses scheme."
This blog has a lot of sympathy with the view expressed by Old Holborn who - unsurprisingly - is taking a novel approach to tomorrow's demonstration.
And, for regular readers who see this blog as being authored by one of their own kind, this blog author probably will be heading out... but we'll probably be heading towards the familiar names and faces at Trafalgar Square.
One last thing to remember. If a policeman so much as clubs a newspaper vendor to death, do not fear... the United Nations will impose a no-fly zone over the United Kingdom and rain a few hundred humanitarian bombs on our heads in revenge.
Russia Today carrying images and reporting that water cannon and tear gas (a chemical weapon) are being used on protestors at EU in Brussels, angry at austerity throughout the undemocratic union.
Any advice, Mr. Gaddafi?
No fly zone over Brussels, is it, United Nations?
Hypocrites.
See also: Al Jazeera - "Police fired water cannon and tear gas to disperse groups of demonstrators close to the European Union summit on Thursday, after activists blocked key roads in the city and caused a traffic gridlock." Voice of America - "Belgian police fired tear gas and bursts from water cannons at some of the group of at least 12,000 protesters." BBC Online - "Police in the Belgian capital Brussels have used water cannon and tear gas on protesters hurling bottles and stones ahead of an EU summit."
So, Dopey Dave and Numbskull Nick's excursion into spreading democracy and liberating the will of the people in Libya - under the Captaincy of Hague the Vague - is already paying dividends.
Having decided to fight a war on the same side as Al-Qaeda in Libya, they - or more to the point we, the people - are having the people of Libya's gratitude expressed quite nicely... as the Daily Mail reports.
"MI5 has warned that Libyan expats are plotting terrorist attacks in Britain in revenge for bombing raids on Colonel Gaddafi’s regime," the newspaper claims.
So, thank you for spreading democracy to the people of Libya.
We trust that any such aggression as outlined in the Daily Mail report will not resort in another round of New Labour style, hardline curbs on our civil liberties... because we know who we'll have to thank if either of those things should come to pass.
However, the plot thickens for our open society, our liberal values and our democracy which represents the will of the people.
You may remember that a plucky group of patriots recently made a citizens arrest of a judge who, they claimed, refused to confirm that he was acting on his oath.
A video of those proceedings had been circulating widely on YouTube.
However, the video page today now looks like this:
"This content is not available in your country due to a government removal request," reports the YouTube page.
What a marvellous turn up for open society and democracy that is. Eat your heart out, North Korea and China.
Actually, one thing those concerned at this censorship should be grateful for is that YouTube have been brave enough to actually tell their site users the truth about what has happened to that video... and the fact that they've told everybody why that video clip has gone means that we have a lot to ponder.
Great, this 'democracy' and 'will of the people' business, huh?
Seems it's exactly the right thing for people to have. In Libya...
This blog didn't bother looking at Georgie Boy's boring budget. What's the point? The country teeters on the brink of bankruptcy and the public is being squeezed left, right and centre. So he's bunged another 40p on a packet of ciggies... like we didn't see that attack on freedom of choice coming.
Other headlines? Flights to Belize won't incur increases in air duty (probably). And apparently, some people will get tax cuts of about £1 a year.
Hmmm. Have we got anything left we can sell off to finance these EU bailouts and bombs we're chucking at dictators (on behalf on Al-Qaeda)..?
No..? Nothing left to sell..?
We really are buggered then, because the EU treachery and the war-mongering will just keep on a-rolling. The globalists demand nothing less of our puppet government.
At some point soon, a Rothschild appointee will put barbed wire up around the coast of Britain and our transformation into an island Alcatraz will be complete.
Got to laugh though. Why, you ask?
Well, come on... our 'government' is clearly mental. Utterly totally bonkers. I'm sorry, but people who claim to be British and running this country to this degree of misfortune are either incredibly wicked and evil beyond compare, else so deliriously mental that the comedy value is beyond compare.
All of 'em. Lib/Lab/Con, I don't care.
They couldn't manage a run to the shops, let alone manage to run a country.
Ruin one, yes. Bloody brilliant at that.
Complete lunatics.
I would have described them as 'Dangerous Lunatics' but they're way beyond that.
...but hey, let's go bomb somewhere most people can't identify on a map in the name of 'democracy' and the 'will of the people'.
May I suggest that it is a nation with a treacherous executive, an unaccountable civil service, and a House of Commons comprised - in the main - of a tribal kakistocracy intimidated by undemocratic whips..?
I think that about covers that question, DM.
Or, to put it another way... this is not our nation's Government. I mean the whole Lib/Lab/Con charade in that.
Our Government does not exist and we have puppet servants of offshore global corporations and supra-national global governments dictating policy rather than the will of the people being represented.
Do you think the useless politicians - complicit or otherwise - have worked out that an angry British public want their country back, yet?
Okay, the genesis of this post needs to be explained before I go for the main point of it.
Even on the day of the 9/11 attacks, my eyes saw the televised spectaculars and something told me that something was not quite right.
The images did, for a while, make me feel all war-mongerish - I confess.
Though deep down inside, there was something that told me that the way those THREE buildings fell - as if in a demolition - was rather worrying.
By the time of 7/7 in London four years later, having seen the assault on our civil liberties in the name of Al-Qaeda, I wasn't buying it. I don't know why, but I smelled a rat.
We had already been to war illegally with Iraq under false claims about weapons of mass destruction.
The next day, 8th July 2005, former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook published an article in The Guardian - shortly before he went for a walk in the woods mountains.
In it, he explained how:
"Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west."
Much has happened since then to convince me that the bogeyman of Al-Qaeda was being exploited by Governments worldwide - but especially by our former rulers New Labour - to attack our civil liberties, freedoms and to construct a control grid.
It is this hesitation and doubt in my mind which has always prevented me from jumping onto the anti-Islam bandwagon, much as I find some of the baggage that comes with hardline Islam troubling.
Whenever I've heard of what the bogeyman Al-Qaeda might do to us, there has - in recent years - been a seperation in mind. When people say 'Al-Qaeda', I think of staged terrorism.
We've heard of links between the Bin Laden family and the family of George Bush.
We've heard that high ranking Al-Qaeda 'leaders' have dined with American intelligence days after 9/11.
So then, we fast forward to 2011.
We've already pointed you in the direction of the Rolling Stone article detailing who British and American troops are fighting on behalf of in Libya. Al-Qaeda.
However, many of you will be looking to publishing names that you know in order to help you reconcile what I contend is one of the most masterful exercises in brainwashing and control in the history of mankind.
Let's go back to another report that we pointed you in the direction of from the Daily Telegraph. This was published on the 18th March - just five days ago.
It reads:
"Libya: the West and al-Qaeda on the same side
Statements of support for Libya's revolution by al-Qaeda and leading Islamists have led to fears that military action by the West might be playing into the hands of its ideological enemies.
WikiLeaks cables, independent analysts and reporters have all identified supporters of Islamist causes among the opposition to Col Gaddafi's regime, particularly in the towns of Benghazi and Dernah.
An al-Qaeda leader of Libyan origin, Abu Yahya al-Libi, released a statement backing the insurrection a week ago, while Yusuf Qaradawi, the Qatar-based, Muslim Brotherhood-linked theologian issued a fatwa authorising Col Gaddafi's military entourage to assassinate him.
The WikiLeaks cables, initially revealed by The Daily Telegraph and dating from 2008, identified Dernah in particular as a breeding ground for fighters in a number of causes, including Afghanistan and Iraq."
Understand that? We're fighting on the side of Al-Qaeda in Libya.
Gadaffi, a terrorist pariah, excluded by the entire world after the Lockerbie atrocity.
But Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the EU's Herman von Rumpy-Pumpy had all been seen kissing, hugging and holding hands with him in recent times.
Why? Sales of weapons and purchases of oil in the case of Blair and Brown. Goodness only knows, in the case of von Rumpy-Pumpy (though we do know that the latter attended a Bilderberg meeting).
Indeed, in conflict with Libya, our brave troops are being shot at with our own weapons. Weapons that we sold to rehabilitated terrorist Gadaffi who is now our big enemy yet again.
So, Al-Qaeda - in the Libya conflict - have undergone the rehabilitation process. They're our friend now, aren't they? They must be... we're fighting on the same side, ostensibly in order to protect their human rights.
Ahhh... but maybe thoughts of that rehabilitation are premature.
Yemen's US-backed president, his support crumbling among political allies and the army, has warned that the country could slide into a "bloody" civil war as the opposition rejected his offer to step down by the end of the year.
Tens of thousands protested in the capital demanding his immediate ousting, emboldened by top military commanders who joined their cause.
Sounding a little familiar?
And then, a bit further down the article:
The turmoil of recent days has raised alarm in Washington, which has heavily backed Mr Saleh to wage a campaign against a major Yemen-based al Qaida wing that plotted attacks in the United States.
US defence secretary Robert Gates said that "instability and diversion of attention" from dealing with al Qaida is a "primary concern about the situation." He refused to weigh in on whether Mr Saleh should step down.
Ahhh! So we're fighting on behalf of and on the same side as Al-Qaeda in Libya, but Al-Qaeda are a huge cause for concern in Yemen?
Al-Qaeda, whose leader Bin Laden has family links to the Bush family.
Al-Qaeda, who have a leader who dined with American intelligence top brass days after 9/11. In the Pentagon.
Al-Qaeda, the big bogeyman on whose existence people all over the Western world have been expected to surrender their rights, liberties and freedoms.
Who has demanded the surrender of our rights, liberties and freedoms? Al-Qaeda? No. Our own governments have demanded that, creating a vast and unimaginable global control grid to monitor, catalogue, database and surpress us all.
So who on earth are Al-Qaeda? Robin Cook has already told you. We've quoted him in this article.
Who are the leaders of many Arab and Middle East nations? Puppet Presidents.
Go back to the Daily Express article of today: "Yemen's US-backed president..."
It seems to me that we're in the middle of one great game of geopolitics and mind-manipulation.
With the added puppets of Al-Qaeda to divide us all in the Western world and to keep us "on side".
Anything else to throw into this?
Yes. Now far be it from us to declare Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the bearer of truth and wisdom... but actually, wasn't most of what he said here included in speeches in the House of Commons on Monday, when debating on war in Libya? Here's what Ahmadinejad had to say about Arab nations, this from March 1st (you won't find this on the BBC):
"Today, the dictators in the region are killing their people with the weapons they have purchased from the U.S. and its allies.
The dictators who are killing their people, do not have the capability to make a simple device and are using the weapons they have purchased from the U.S. and its allies to kill their people… the U.S. government and its allies must be held accountable for imposing dictatorship on the people of these countries over the past 30 to 40 years."
Further in the same article: "He added the countries that established dictatorial system in the world claim to be the advocates of democracy."
And hang on... isn't that true?
How many times have we laughed out loud as Blair, Brown, Cameron and Hague have talked about 'democracy' and 'the will of the people' while denying us our say on the European Union - the most undemocratic organisation in the world?
France said 'no', Ireland said 'no' and was made to vote again, we are never allowed a say despite all three parties promising that we could have one in their election manifestos. Democracy? Will of the people?
Doesn't Ahmadinejad have that one about right?
So, that's the backstory. No conspiracy theory. Our major sources for this post are the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and the Daily Express. All I've done is read and comprehend.
Sorry to keep going back to Libya and being so against what "we're" doing there (though I would argue that we have had a puppet government at Westminster for a great many years)...
...but "we" are at war (I'm not) and thought it important to point everyone in the direction of a powerful article on Rolling Stone.
It details how:
"America is now at war to protect a Libyan province that's been an epicenter of anti-American jihad.
In recent years, at mosques throughout eastern Libya, radical imams have been "urging worshippers to support jihad in Iraq and elsewhere," according to WikiLeaked cables. More troubling: The city of Derna, east of Benghazi, was a "wellspring" of suicide bombers that targeted U.S. troops in Iraq."
Brave article from Rolling Stone - bravo to them.
Read the full thing and circulate widely. You do have to inform yourself, even if you've never heard of any of these places or people before.
Remember all this next time they start removing our civil liberties in the name of "terrorism".
By now, Her Majesty should have read my letter of complaint about treason and I can only hope it did not ruin her appetite and put her off the Royal cornflakes.
Of course, I know that in reality, it probably got as far as an office where paid staff respond on The Queen's behalf... but I have done my patriotic duty to Queen and country. I have also obeyed the law.
I promise that I will share what I can of any reply.
Can I also state, for the public record, that I am not suicidal and am unlikely to ever be so. I'm very happy, thank you, and I have no immediate plans to go for a walk in any woodland.
One other point of contact you might all want to look into is the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
"Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute."
Great, so report MPs who pledge one thing in a manifesto and then vote in favour of treason.
Okay, like every other part of the establishment, probably nothing will be done about it.
"On the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War the leaders of the military uprising immediately asked the German government for help. The first request was for ten transport planes to ferry Nationalist troops from Morocco to Spain. Constantin von Neurath, the German foreign minister, initially rejected the request, expressing fears that such a move could lead to a European war. Adolf Hitler did not agree with Neurath and after consulting with Herman Goering, Wilhelm Canaris and Werner von Blomberg, he told General Francisco Franco on 26th July 1936 that Germany would support his rebellion.
Hitler justified his decision by arguing that he was attempting to save Europe from "communist barbarism". Another reason was that it brought Germany closer to Italy, a country that was also supporting the military uprising in Spain. Hitler also knew that a Nationalist victory would give him an important ally in his struggle with Britain and France. He was especially interested in obtaining iron, copper, mercury and pyrites from Spain for his armaments industry.
Another factor in Hitler's decision was that providing military aid to the Nationalist Army would give him the opportunity to test out his commanders, weapons and tactics."
We're now accustomed to watching Russia Today for wider debate than the one sided views we're given in our corporate media so, flicking through their YouTube channel just now and what do we find..?
John Laughland, giving views on the war on Libya which raises many points which are shared by this blogger - and which cause us to oppose military action. He doesn't mention 'New World Order', 'Bilderberg Group', 'Globalist Corporations' or 'Military Industrial Complex' but he's getting there...
Coming at it from a different political position - but drawing the same or similar conclusions - is (sometimes controversial) political writer Diane Johnstone. Here, we do agree with her almost entirely...
And while the hypcrisy is breathtaking, we reckon Vladimir Putin has it about right:
One of the interesting things about the military action in Libya is that many of my blogging colleagues in the anti-EU/patriotic community seem to be, at least, deeply cynical and suspicious - if not, like The Talking Clock, openly opposed.
It puts us 'evil right wing bloggers' on the same side of debate as people such as George Galloway and the Stop The War Coalition... neatly showing up some of the inappropriate conceptions and understandings of the political terms 'left' and 'right'.
In the end, only 13 MPs agreed with us (insofar as to vote against action in Libya). Future history will judge who was wisest.
The 13 who voted against - and thus earn our praise - are in the majority from the Labour Party but, in some cases (you may note) are not entirely unfamiliar to us EU-sceptics:
Allen, Mr Graham (Labour)
Baron, Mr John (Conservative)
Campbell, Mr Ronnie (Labour)
Corbyn, Jeremy (Labour)
Durkan, Mark (SDLP)
Gardiner, Barry (Labour)
Godsiff, Mr Roger (Labour)
Lucas, Caroline (Green)
McDonnell, John (Labour)
Riordan, Mrs Linda (Labour)
Ritchie, Ms Margaret (SDLP)
Skinner, Mr Dennis (Labour)
Wood, Mike (Labour)
Here are some of our most agreed with moments from the House of Commons debate where there were powerful points from both sides of the House...
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We know that military intervention has started without the House being able to debate or vote on the issue. On 10 March the Leader of the House was asked during business questions by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) whether the House could definitely have a vote before any military action was taken if a no-fly zone was to be imposed. The Leader of the House said yes, that that is now the convention and that it was the Government’s intention to
“observe that convention except when there is an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 1066.]
I say to you, Sir, that the vote on military action in Iraq was on 18 March 2003, and that action took place two days later. If the House could not meet to discuss this on Friday, was it not possible for us to meet on Saturday? The convention whereby the House debates military action before such action takes place has not been followed.
Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Having first entered the House in 1966, he will know that the arrangement of business is a matter for the Government, not the Chair. He has made an important point and it is on the record. If he catches the eye of the Chair, he will have an opportunity to develop that point among others later in the afternoon.
-
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): Of course, no two campaigns are the same, but there are similarities between this campaign and that to protect the Kurdish people when Saddam Hussein turned on his own people and began to attack them. The motion before the House calls for all necessary measures to protect the people of Libya. Can the Prime Minister confirm that when we vote on the motion tonight, that does not mean regime change in Libya, because that is up to the Libyan people?
-
Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister will be aware that the Chinese Government have called for a special meeting of the Security Council this evening, and that India has expressed deep reservations about the bombardments that are going on. Can he tell us something about the apparent continuing falling away of support for the actions that have been taken, and what the end game actually is?
-
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way.
Given our poor record of intervention in the past, can my right hon. Friend explain to the sceptics among us why we do not allow the Arabs to take the lead on this, particularly the Arab League, which has called for intervention, and let them instigate a no-fly zone? After all, Egypt is well placed, and we have been selling these Arab nations the capability.
-
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): I am grateful to the Prime Minister. I am sure he would agree that any military action needs to be principled and consistent, but last year, the UK issued £231 million-worth of arms exports licences to Libya and £55 million of licences to Saudi Arabia, including the very personnel carriers that were rolling into Bahrain just last week. Does he not agree that our position would be a lot more consistent and a lot more principled if we stopped selling arms to repressive regimes anywhere in that region?
-
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD): The legal note that accompanies the debate makes it clear that the Security Council resolution recognises that Libya
“constitutes a threat to international peace and security.”
Although I do not recommend that we take such action, from the point of view of consistency, why are we not taking action against Yemen?
-
Robert Halfon: Does the right hon. Gentleman [Ed Miliband] not agree that, in part, we are where we are because of the actions of the last Government in appeasing and collaborating with Gaddafi, in selling him weapons, and in building business and academic links?
-
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): The Leader of the Opposition is making a very thoughtful case. Can he tell us how much intervention he thinks it reasonable for the west to make in what is really a civil war in which the rebel side is experiencing considerable difficulties?
-
Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, although what he is saying is of great importance, there are also lessons to be learned. Does he not think that it is time for a wholesale review of our policy of military co-operation and arms sales in the case of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, and of what is happening in Yemen and further afield in the Congo, the Ivory Coast and other places? At what point is he prepared to say that we should be involved or not involved, and at what point is he prepared to say that we will seriously scale down our arms export industry, which actually leads to much of the oppression in the first place?
-
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): That Gaddafi is a murderous tyrant has never been in doubt from the time he seized power in 1969. Like all hon. Members, however, I am concerned about the situation in many other countries, and the doubt in my mind stems from the fact that intervention by western powers is so selective. Last week, 45 people were slaughtered in Yemen, yet no one has suggested that we should intervene there. In Bahrain, there has been armed intervention by Saudi Arabia, but our Government have not suggested that we should intervene. It seems that, to a large extent, we intervene only in countries whose regimes are considered anti-west.
-
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con): Having watched these debates and diplomacy since the Falklands war, and having observed the battles on CNN and sanitised movie footage of jets taking off, troops returning fire and Union Jacks attached to aerials and advancing tanks, I find it a daunting thought to be in the House debating and contemplating our responsibility for the deployment of people whose principal purpose is to kill other people on our behalf. During my basic training in the Army, I realised that a sergeant shouting at me to stab and scream and stab again a bale of hay with a fixed bayonet was teaching me how to rip somebody apart. A few years later, I saw the remains of an IRA terrorist unit that had been ambushed by a Special Air Service unit. The remains had been shredded by the hundred of bullets that had gone through their bodies.
Following the first Gulf war, a friend of mine showed me some pictures that he had taken of the convoy attempting to escape back up to Iraq. One of the pictures was of the charred, black head and a desperate hand—black and maimed—of someone trying to leave their vehicle. There is nothing glorious or romantic about war. To those in the media who have portrayed what is happening now—or what has happened in previous wars—as some form of entertainment, I say that that is just not right. I am afraid that human beings need to commit brutal, savage attacks on each other to win wars.
I have spoken in the House before about our lack of political capital following the illegal war in Iraq and what I believe is a folly in Afghanistan. There may be moral reasons to fight again, but I will be honest: we are struggling to find the moral high ground from which to project that morality. As people have said, Gaddafi is the man who brought down the Pan Am plane over Lockerbie, the man who shipped the weapons that killed some of my colleagues and the man who killed WPC Fletcher. However, I feel uncomfortable about going to war. It is not a simple choice; it is a really difficult choice to contemplate.
This morning when I was coming to work, I listened to a phone-in from BBC television about whether we should kill Gaddafi. It was almost gladiatorial, as though people were phoning in so that we could see whether the populace was giving a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. I have to say that I was fairly disgusted that the killing of another human being, however disgusting he is, could become a form of entertainment.
While we pontificate about morality and our obligations, brave men and women are putting their lives at risk at our request. This is not a debate about student fees, the Scotland Bill or the double summer time Bill; this is about the business of war. We do not take this decision lightly. While we wage war on our enemy, Muslim brothers and Arab leaders—with a few exceptions—remain silent. It is more convenient for the infidel to kill their Muslim brothers and gesture disapproval than it is to stand up to a tyrant.
-
Mr Allen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman deeply concerned that in this exercise western forces are deployed in Libya, yet other than a promise from Qatar, not a single Arab state is deploying troops on the ground, in the air or on the sea to support that action? Does that not lead him to have very deep concerns about the position that he has just expressed?
Mr Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. I am trying to be fairly succinct as we have only a few minutes, but he is right. That is of great concern. One hopes the Arab League will shortly convert its support into something more tangible; otherwise it will be a propaganda coup for Gaddafi and his type. That is a vital point.
-
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who correctly highlighted the importance of energy policy to all the issues that we are discussing.
I welcome the fact that debate is taking place today and that there is to be a vote. The traditions of the House have often meant that there have not been parliamentary votes on such matters. I would have preferred a vote to have taken place before troops were deployed, even if it meant the House convening on a Saturday. We need to consider that for the future. However, it is clear that there will be a full debate today, and there was a statement on Friday, when many aspects of the issue were discussed.
I have found the issues very difficult. I am disappointed that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) was not selected, as it highlights some of the matters that concern me. Yet again, arms that have been supplied by British companies are being used against people internally by tyrants, and weapons that British companies have sold to Libya will probably be used against our own troops. We need to review that again and look at our policy on the arms trade,
The Arab world is going through revolutionary change, with uprisings in country after country, and we must look at the issue in that context. I of course support all those struggling for democracy and against tyrants and have always been appalled by the actions of Gaddafi. I fully understand the unwillingness to stand aside while the innocent are being slaughtered and so have every sympathy with those who feel that we must intervene. However, I have concerns about what we will actually be supporting the Government to do if we vote in favour of the motion. That is partly because the conflict is taking place in north Africa and previous interventions in that part of the world, including the middle east, have been very difficult for the west and inspired huge amounts of hatred towards it. The debate might be quite different if the conflict was taking place in a different part of the world.
I am also concerned because I genuinely fear that we might be entering what could be a long war. The wording of the UN resolution is very wide, and the reference to “all necessary measures” in some ways gives a blank cheque to the powers taking action. In other ways, however, it probably does not give those taking action the ability to do what they really need to do in Libya. We could easily end up being involved in a very long conflict but with Gaddafi remaining in power.
Although I find the issue difficult and think that there are many potential difficulties, as has been highlighted by colleagues on both sides of the House, I think that the key to the decisions we take over the coming period must be our relationships not only with Arab states, but with Arab peoples. Like many colleagues, I am particularly interested in what the Muslim and Arab communities in this country are saying at the moment and what Arab states and peoples will be saying over the coming period. In my short contribution, I wish to encourage Members on the Treasury Bench to listen to the messages coming from the middle east and north Africa, which should be taken on board when key strategic decisions are made.
I have deep concerns about this action and particularly about how long this war might last. We must look at it in the context of the war on terror. My fear is that if we continue with military action, particularly if it is conducted over an extended period by western powers, we might be giving ammunition to the fundamentalists in the middle east and the Arab world whose values are very different from those held by us in this House.
-
Katy Clark: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution and very much hope that he is correct. We must be very alert to the extent to which what we are seeing in Libya is a genuine uprising by all the people or a civil war. When we look at what has happened in Iraq in particular, and also in Afghanistan, we will see that many in the west do not understand the tribal loyalties, but we must be very alert to them.
I have deep concerns about what is happening and very much hope, as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has indicated, that it will lead quickly to the overthrow of Gaddafi. Like many people in this country, I am concerned that that might not be straightforward, because previous conflicts have not been. There will be serious political and financial implications if the House decides to endorse the Government’s motion. Domestically, we are seeing huge cuts in public spending, including spending on military equipment. We need to think carefully about the extent to which our constituents will feel that a long and expensive war, which follows on from previous conflicts, is something that they will support Parliament in pursuing. It is important that we take all those factors into account. I welcome the fact that this debate is taking place and that the Government are putting resources into looking at what is happening in the region, but I have concerns that, even if those taking the decisions do so with the best intentions, there might be consequences that we will live to regret.
-
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): In view of the Security Council resolution, there is no doubt about the legality of the military operation. The Security Council has clearly carried the resolution, and the issue is not about whether the action is legal, because it clearly must be so, but about judgment and whether such intervention is justified. Much has been made about the Arab League and so on; incidentally, I do not know how many, if any, Arab League countries could be considered democracies. Be that as it may, I accept that none of them is quite in the same category as Gaddafi’s Libya.
Interestingly, the secretary-general of the league, just two days after the heavy bombing, is reported to have said that
“what we want is the protection of the civilians and not a bombardment of more civilians.”
If he is saying that at this particular stage, what is he going to say in the following days if the bombing continues? Undoubtedly, there will be civilian casualties, and yes, Gaddafi will make much of it, make propaganda—one would not expect otherwise. But one does not need to be a military expert to accept that one cannot carry out such military operations without civilian casualties. So while we talk about protecting the people and the reason—the justification—for the operation, we have to recognise that many innocent people are going to be killed or slaughtered, whatever word we use, because the situation cannot be otherwise.
We have spoken and debated from a western point of view, but I ask the House to look at the situation from the Arab point of view—not that of the Arab League, or the Arab rulers, but that of the ordinary people in Arab countries. They want a decent life; that is why the protests grew out of the suicide in Tunisia. Of course they want a decent life; that is one reason why there is such an influx of, and motivation for, immigration. We want a decent life, so do our constituents and so do the people in countries of acute poverty and deprivation. Human beings are the same the whole world over.
Let us look at the situation from the Arab point of view. In Yemen, the regime slaughtered 45 people last week. They were protesting. In Bahrain and Saudi Arabia there is repression, and of course Saudi Arabia actually took military action to intervene in Bahrain. Has anyone suggested that we should intervene against Saudi Arabia? Of course not. Even if repression grew in Saudi Arabia itself, or in Bahrain, one thing would be absolutely certain: the British Government would not draft a resolution with the United States to put before the Security Council of the United Nations. We know that.
-
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): I start, as have many others, by thanking the RAF ground crew and pilots and Royal Navy personnel who have seen action in Libya so far. In particular, I draw attention to the RAF crew who pulled back because of their concerns about potential civilian casualties. It is important that we recognise the professionalism of the RAF crews and naval personnel who are engaged out there.
I have had some concerns about this operation regarding civilians, the lack of a clear end game, and our capabilities, but I have also looked at the potential of this seminal moment. There is a wind of unrest across the middle east. Elsewhere, we have had rose revolutions and orange revolutions, and now we seem to have a mobile phone revolution in which unrest across the middle east is generating a desire for change, openness, reform and greater freedom—a sharing of wealth and opportunity. It is important that we recognise and embrace this moment to take the opportunity of a new relationship with the Arab world. By backing the UN resolution and the no-fly zone, Arab leaders have shown a willingness to stand up and be counted, and to draw their own proverbial line in the sand. We must recognise that there will be a need for clear rules of engagement for all the participants in this endeavour—rules that everyone, including members of the Arab League, will have to sign up to.
The Chairman of the Defence Committee, of which I am a member, raised a valid point about the need to clarify all the circumstances. For example, what do we do if the rebels attack Gaddafi’s troops and he retaliates? Do we attack Gaddafi? That has not been made clear, and this House needs to know. We need to know who is going to take command and control responsibilities, which the US has indicated that it wants to pass on to NATO. Turkey is a member of NATO, and it is concerned about that. What is the Arab League’s role in embracing command and control responsibilities? Where do the enforcement of sanctions, the closing down of Gaddafi’s means of communications and the sharing of intelligence sit in our rules of engagement and our command and control agreements? The big task is going to be one of foreign policy and diplomacy. The Arab League’s continued engagement and movement into partnership with the west will not be easy to maintain, and it has to be one of our priorities. There will be tribal tensions between Shi’a and Sunni.
We have all heard the comments about Amr Moussa and civilian deaths. We must be up front and acknowledge that civilians will die. A recent report by Save the Children stated that 90% of casualties in war zones are civilians. In the past decade, 2 million children have died, and 6 million have been permanently disabled, directly as a result of conflict. Our rules of engagement attempt to mitigate such deaths, but the deaths will happen, and the allies must acknowledge that. We need to ensure that the International Committee of the Red Cross and all UN bodies have access to the war zone to monitor the situation so that we can have clear, neutral and impartial reporting.
It is not clear to me that we have an end game. We know that there cannot be a foreign occupation force, but there is no clear indication of whether regime change is an objective. The strategic defence and security review states that we will deploy forces on the basis of a number of tests, including whether it is in our national interests. One of tests is whether we have a “viable exit strategy”. No one today has clarified that exit strategy.
It has been suggested that we should not mention the SDSR. However, over the weekend, I have received many phone calls from members of the armed forces who feel angry. They feel that there has been talk of cuts and of loss of platform. That platform is now being brought into use. There is a concern that we must be up front and acknowledge that we need our armed forces to take this matter forward for us. We in this House can agree to that, but it is our armed forces who are putting their lives on the line on behalf of the Libyan people and the people whom this House represents.
-
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab): As has been said, there could be a quick collapse if the Libyan military turns against Gaddafi, or there could be a long stalemate if the regime not only declares a ceasefire but observes it and holds on to what it retains in western and southern Libya. In either case, it is unclear at the moment—I wonder whether it is clear to the Government—how any intended outcome will be achieved. If Gaddafi is deposed or killed, given the strong tribal structure in Libya, what is to prevent the country from descending into civil war? How will law and order be imposed in such circumstances, particularly if the Libyan military retains its loyalty to the old regime—as some of it will—and refuses to do a deal with the rebels?
On the other hand, if Gaddafi is forced to end hostilities by the overwhelming force of allied air power, which is very likely, and opts to stay put in western Libya, what then? Will the words “all necessary measures” allow us to sidestep the arms embargo and channel arms to the rebels to enable them to carry on the fight, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) suggested earlier? The Prime Minister said on Friday that the resolution’s
“very strong language…allows states to take a number of military steps to protect people and harm those who are intending to damage civilians.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 623.]
But that cannot possibly justify arming one side when the other is observing a ceasefire. Equally, using superior allied air power to knock out Libyan army strongpoints if the rebels were to advance on Tripoli would be way outside the essentially defensive context of the UN resolution. In those circumstances, how would the stalemate be broken?
-
Mr Meacher: My last point concerns the precedent that is being set. Of course every case is different, but the western powers and the UN did not intervene when there were arguably much stronger cases for it in Rwanda, in the Shi’ite uprisings against Saddam in southern Iraq in 1991 or in the three-week war and extensive killing in Gaza. As many Members have asked, where will the new doctrine this time around lead?
The argument about selectivity and the application of moral principles has been widely voiced in the middle east. If protecting civilians against a dictator who is seeking bloodily to suppress demand for democratic reform is the prevailing policy, how can that doctrine not be applied to interventions in Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria or elsewhere? That question has been asked repeatedly, but it has not received an answer.
-
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con): Finally, I wish to reflect on 9 April 2003, the day when many of us were fooled by our own propaganda. It was the day when the statue of Saddam Hussein was torn down by the US forces and hundreds of Iraqis were seen hitting the structure with the soles of their shoes in celebration. They were described as “elated”. That and similar images and reports led me, and I am sure many others, to believe that almost all the Iraqi people were relieved at our military intervention. History teaches us that such things are not always true.
-
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): What is the mission all about? Only three weeks ago, we were training Libyan forces and selling arms to Libya. British companies were happily trading with Libya and British universities were happily accepting vast sums of money from Libya until a few weeks ago. It is an awfully short time in our relations with Libya in which to go from hero to zero. The rest of the world may be concerned about that.
-
Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I do not know the politics, aims, ambitions or anything else of the people in Benghazi any more than I suspect he does. We should be cautious about going to war on behalf of a group of people whom we do not know or understand and of whose aims we are not aware. Many were Ministers in the Gaddafi Government, again, only three weeks ago. It is a very short time.
There is a danger that we do nothing about Bahrain because of close economic and military involvement, despite the US fifth fleet being there. There is a danger that we say nothing about Saudi Arabia because of the vast arms market there. The former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, felt that Saudi Arabia was so important that he stopped the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the al-Yamamah arms contract. In Yemen and Oman, people are dying. They thirst for exactly the same thing. I was at a conference this morning of Bahraini opposition groups who made strong points. They said that they were not campaigning about human rights in Bahrain yesterday, but last year, the year before, the year before that and so on. Indeed, I first met Bahraini opposition groups who were concerned about the overwhelming power of the king in 1986 at a UN human rights conference in Copenhagen.
-
Mr MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that action in Libya now helps the case for action in the countries that he mentioned later?
Jeremy Corbyn: I do not believe that it does because the economic interests in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain far outweigh any humanitarian concerns. I simply do not believe that it will happen.
However, we must use the opportunity to reassess our foreign policy, our arms sales policy and the way in which we get into bed with dictator after dictator around the world. We should also think for a moment about the message that goes out on the streets throughout north Africa and the middle east.
When Israeli planes bombed Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09, I did not hear any calls for a no-fly zone over Gaza. F-16 jets pounded Palestinians, killing 1,500 civilians. We have to understand the bitterness of that period and the experience of the Palestinian people because many Palestinian diaspora, living out their lives in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt—all over the region—want the right to return home. They see the double standards of the west: interested in supporting Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people; currently intervening in Libya but doing nothing to support the Palestinian people.
We are in an interesting period in history. There was an Arab revolution in the 1950s, supporting the principle of pan-Arab unity. Nasser was one of its leading figures. That degenerated into a series of fairly corrupt dictatorships that still run the Arab League. None feels very secure when they attend Arab League meetings. Indeed, they go home as quickly as possible afterwards, lest there be a coup.
We are seeing a popular revolution for accountable government, peace and democracy on the streets throughout the region. We have been on the wrong side in selling arms and supporting dictators. We have not thought through the implications of what we are doing now in Libya. I suspect that we might end up in a Libyan civil war for a long time and that this is not the only occasion on which we will debate the subject in the House. This is the easy bit; the hard part is yet to come.
-
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): I have some reservations about what we are doing. I am pleased to see the Foreign Secretary in his place; I hope that he will answer some of the reservations that have been voiced today.
My first point is a House of Commons point, because I received an absolute assurance from the Leader of the House two weeks ago on the Floor of the House that before we went to war in future, there would be a substantive vote in the House of Commons. When we went to war in the Falklands, the House of Commons sat on a Saturday. We have to establish the principle—this is not just a House of Commons point; it is a serious and important constitutional point—that in future when we go to war, the House of Commons should vote first.
Secondly, I have a number of questions about what we are doing in this operation. I voted against the Iraq war, because although it was ostensibly about dealing with weapons of mass destruction, in fact, as we know, it was about regime change. A lot of people have said that the current situation is very different, but is it? We are told that it is about humanitarian objectives, but is it not, in fact, about regime change, just as in Iraq? We need to ensure that our objectives are entirely and only humanitarian, and about protecting the people in Benghazi.
In one sense, the current situation is very different from the situation in Iraq, because at least there we were determined to go in and achieve regime change. Speaker after speaker has asked what we are going to achieve with the current operation. People say that we cannot always foretell the future and that that is not an excuse for doing nothing, but surely if we set off on a journey, it is generally a good idea to know the destination. Planes do not occupy ground. Missiles can destroy tanks, but they do not destroy regimes. Bombing Tripoli might bolster the regime’s support among the population there—indeed, it already has.
I have already asked the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House—no answer can be given—what will happen if the current operation just produces a stalemate. What will we do then? Will we be able to resist the moral pressure to get more and more involved, and to send in troops? There is absolutely no enthusiasm in this country for getting involved in a third war in the Muslim world. Aircraft can stop things happening—they can stop tanks entering Benghazi and I will support the operation to that extent—but they cannot make things happen.
A lot of lazy thinking has gone on along the lines that the regime was so unpopular that simply imposing a no-fly zone would make it fade away. Will that happen? Where is our strategic interest in Libya, which after all is 1,500 miles away? What are Egypt and Tunisia doing? They are its neighbours. Why is there not a single Arab plane in action at this moment?
We know that the first casualty of war is truth. The second casualty may well be a UN resolution, so that we are sucked into something far beyond what we have voted for. What are Russia and China doing, or rather not doing? Why is Iran silent? Is it because it supports Islamist irregulars in the east and is already there? Why would Gaddafi need to contest a no-fly zone if he can simply infiltrate troops? Is this a humanitarian war or is it a military war to change the regime? Will our efforts simply make Libya into another long-term brutal Sudan-type war?
It is often assumed that there are good guys and bad guys, but in fact Cyrenaica, in the east and controlled by the rebels, has always been separated from Tripolitania in the west. The two parts only became one state in 1934 and there has been a long-term dispute or semi-civil war between them for a long time. Indeed, in the 18th century Tripolitania invaded Cyrenaica and there were many massacres. History is extremely complicated; this region is very complicated; and we need to understand what is going on.
I was pleased to see the Defence Secretary in his seat. The old adage from Theodore Roosevelt is:
“Speak softly and carry a big stick”,
but we have been in danger of speaking loudly and breaking our sticks in two in the strategic defence review. If one has read the British press, one would imagine that the whole world is hanging on to our words. They are not. I was reading the French press, and there was little mention of Britain. In Italy, no doubt, they believe that Berlusconi is taking the lead. There is only one capital that matters and that is Washington.
Oratory is not enough; we need air power. How many Tornados do we have? I believe that the strategic defence and security review was a disaster, as big a disaster as the Nott review, which was finally overtaken by the Falklands war. I hope that this operation overtakes the disastrous defence review. France has an aircraft carrier; Spain has an aircraft carrier; Russia has an aircraft carrier; the USA has 11 aircraft carriers; and we have to fly a round trip of 3,000 miles to impose our military force. By the way, all we have done is send three Tornados and two cruise missiles.
-
Dr Julian Lewis: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point, which I did not have time to raise. Although it is true that in this case we can get by from land bases, when it comes to the fuel costs of flying a single mission, a Harrier from a carrier would have cost £5,750, one from Sicily or southern Italy costs about £23,000 and one from the United Kingdom costs £200,000.
-
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is listening to the cries for help from the people of Bahrain who have been murdered by Saudi Arabian troops, the people in the south of Syria who have been murdered by troops, or the people in Yemen who have been murdered by another dictator there. Why select these cries for help to listen to?
-
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this crucial debate. I also welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women in our armed forces, whose courage and commitment are beyond question. However, I think we owe it to them, and indeed to all in the middle east and north African region, to ensure that the role that Britain plays is beyond reproach or misunderstanding. That means that it must be consistent, that it must be principled, and that it must be likely to do good rather than harm. Measuring the military intervention that has taken place so far against those benchmarks, I am not sure that they are being met.
Let take us consistency. I have heard no serious answers to the charge that we are being enormously selective in the battles that we are choosing to fight. The Prime Minister has been asked whether military intervention in Libya signals a new direction for British foreign policy, and whether we might expect similar action to be taken against other oppressive regimes. Libya, we are told, is special. We are also told that the fact that we cannot do good everywhere should not be an argument against doing whatever we can. I consider it critical that if we choose to move in this direction, we should do so with clear principles that are as independent of self-interest as we can possibly make them. The fact that we are operating in the same week as invading Saudi forces are executing unarmed democracy protesters on the streets of Bahrain raises serious questions.
In considering whether our action is truly principled, we surely have to say why we think it appropriate to continue to sell arms to the region. I do not apologise for returning to that issue, because the Colonel Gaddafi who has been rightly described today as a murderous dictator has not suddenly become one. He was already a murderous dictator a few months, or weeks, ago, when we were happy to sell him tear gas, crowd control equipment, ammunition for wall and door-breaching projectile launchers, and plenty of other military equipment as well. In the nine months leading up to September last year, the United Kingdom issued millions of pounds’ worth of arms export licences for Libya, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
We cannot ignore our own complicity in arriving at this point. We cannot continue to arm regimes that abuse their own citizens, and try to claim the moral high ground when addressing the conflicts that those same arms have helped to perpetuate. As recently as last month, Ministers attended the IDEX—international defence exhibition—arms fairs in Abu Dhabi, and in less than six months the United Kingdom will host its own arms fair in London, where, no doubt, regimes that abuse their own people will once again seek to buy the tools of their repression. I hope very much that the commitment that we are hearing today—the commitment to upholding human rights in the middle east—will extend to our policies on arms exports, so that we can finally not just review but end the policy of selling arms to repressive regimes.
-
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): In reflecting on how to vote, I think of how this all began on 17 December 2010 with one man, Mohammed Bouazizi, who burned himself to death because of the oppression he saw and experienced in Tunisia. That set off a wave of activity across the middle east. In supporting this, we line up with him and with the young people of the region––the 29% of the population aged between 15 and 29 who have had enough. They are educated, too often unemployed, and concerned about an ossifying political system that does not seem to relate to their experience. They want to do something about the dictators and the lack of democracy across the region. That is the test. Those are the people we support, despite the UN resolution that is the subject of today’s motion. In doing so, we should recognise the changed circumstances in which we have such a debate and the kind of scrutiny that is expected of us.
Any action taken must clearly be proportionate. We must be mindful of the fact that the British public at large do not expect there to be large-scale civilian death as a result of our action. Any action must be proportionate and multilateral. This generation is mindful of the imperial past of our country and those countries that are part of the allied effort. That is important. That is why the multilateral approach is the right one. Against that backdrop, it is concerning that the Arab League, although it is prayed in aid, seems neither present, nor wholly behind what is happening. It is concerning that the African Union, too, clearly wants to disassociate itself from the bombing of Libya. How are we to present a multilateral force if those two major players are not part of it?
The generation of young people on the streets in the middle east, who are in communication with their generation in this country, ask two other major questions. First, what are the criteria by which we intervene? Why not Darfur or Zimbabwe? What is our position on Yemen and Bahrain? Is there consistency when we intervene? They are entitled to some answers on the new and changed circumstances, particularly in the context in which we are talking not about being invaded ourselves, but about intervention that is perhaps necessary in this new age. Secondly, that generation also asks for some consistency, integrity and principles in the UK’s position on arms. Just as we have taken noble positions on nuclear proliferation, the time has come not just for another review, but for statutory implementation on arms. We must ask ourselves why in the last year for which figures are available Europe spent €343 million arming Libya, involving companies from the UK, Italy, Germany and France. It was unacceptable when my party was in government, and it is unacceptable now.
-
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con): We must remember that the resolution would not exist at all without the backing of the Arab League, therefore planes from those nations should be in action and soon. I welcome the news that Qatar is sending four warplanes, and I hope that Egypt and Saudi Arabia will follow suit. Should we lose the support of the Arab League for the resolution, it will put our Prime Minister and this country in a horrible predicament.
One of the burdens of the freedom we cherish is that we cannot idly stand by and watch while evil rides out, unleashing its vile intent. For that reason, I support any humanitarian relief that we can give to those fleeing Gaddafi’s brutality, but I do wonder where we will be operating next. Hon. Members have mentioned Zimbabwe, Liberia, Rwanda, Bahrain and Yemen. What if Saudi Arabia goes? I will leave the House with that thought.
The duty of any Government is to protect the nation, her people and her interests. Libya is of strategic significance, I believe, but I am concerned that we are walking on a knife-edge. Yes, we should be concerned about a pariah state festering on Europe’s southern boundary; wounded, Gaddafi’s regime would be even more dangerous. We must not forget his recent statement to unite with al-Qaeda in a holy war against us. Let us not forget his support for the IRA and, of course, the murder of Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher and Lockerbie. The list goes on. But what if Gaddafi holds out in his western stronghold while menacing Benghazi? What happens then? Will that test the west’s resolve? I suspect it will.
In those circumstances and out of frustration, could an unintended consequence mean boots on the ground? Lessons from the recent past cannot be ignored. This is potentially much more than a no-fly zone, and that is where many of us have concerns. Currently, we know almost nothing about the insurgents or who, if Gaddafi were to fall, would take his place, but we have all learned to fear a vacuum in the Arab world. There is not going to be a brave new world in Libya where western democracy rules, and we would fool ourselves if we thought that.
-
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): I have listened to all the Members who have spoken in this debate since 3.30 this afternoon. I rise to my feet with trepidation because I am in the minority of the few Members who do not think that this action is wise. I will explain why.
I believe that although the Prime Minister and the leader of my party are genuine and sincere in their desire for humanitarian intervention in Libya, many in this House and outside are not genuine in that desire but are itching to have a go at Colonel Gaddafi and Libya because of their support in the distant past for the IRA, the Lockerbie bombing, al-Megrahi and other reasons. I am afraid that many of those people are using this situation as a fig leaf for intervention.
Another reason, and I know that people do not like hearing this, is oil. Oil plays a massive role in this matter and in our economic and strategic interests in Libya. There are, of course, Members in this House who hold views like those of the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), whom I heard last week say that he is proud to intervene in as many Muslim countries as we want to.
I urge caution because there is too little information about the real situation in Libya. Comparisons have been made with Iraq. Many people said that we did not know what the real situation was in Iraq; that the war would not be easy or straightforward; that we could not just go in, blast them and take over—end of story; and that everybody would run into the streets to welcome us. That is what we were told then, and we were told that we needed to do that war. The same drums are beating now for Libya.
There is the suggestion that the whole of the Arab League and everyone in Libya is saying, “Come and help us.” They are not. The states of the Arab League have their own vested interests. They are not that concerned about humanitarian issues. We talk about the rebels in Libya. Who are these rebels, when did they come about and how many are there? How deep is the resistance and the rebellion? Why is this not just seen as a civil insurrection that is going on in a country? Do we know what we will get in place of the regime?
I know that everybody is saying that we cannot tell what will happen at the end of the war, because when one starts a military intervention one does not know what will be the end. However, we should know exactly what we are going in for and exactly what we are trying to achieve. Everybody has a romantic notion of a no-fly zone, but, as Robert Gates said, it is a euphemism for war. If we want to maintain no-fly zones we have to send in many Scud missiles and bombs, and nobody can say that there will not be any civilian destruction as a result of all the bombing. It is wrong for everyone to pretend that the no-fly zone and strategic air drops will prevent civilian casualties. There will be massive civilian casualties, and we will have exactly the situation that we had in Iraq.
I always urge people to understand—even in the case of Iraq, although I was not in the House at the time—that we in this country and this House do not really understand the middle east and north Africa. We are meddling in things that we should not meddle in, because there are so many uncertainties. In the past 10 or 12 years, America, ourselves and others have spent trillions of dollars on being involved in conflicts in the middle east, and what have we left? We have not resolved any of the situations involved or made countries any better than when we went into them.
-
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con): Brevity demands bluntness, for which I hope the Government will forgive me. I support the motion, but I think that we need to be honest about the consequences of what we are taking on. First, we have crossed a threshold, and by approving this motion, the House is crossing it with our political leaders. Hon. Members should have no illusions: there is no such thing as limited war, in all its bloody terror and dirt. Secondly, I remind the House that
“no one starts a war—or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so—without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.”
So wrote Karl von Clausewitz.
The Government must admit that on that there is some doubt and the potential for confusion and indecision. The Prime Minister set that out again today when he outlined the limited aims of the UN Security Council resolution alongside our aspiration to remove Gaddafi. The former Chief of the General Staff, General Lord Dannatt, wrote at the weekend:
“Unless the military planners are crystal clear about the strategic objective to be achieved then the focusing of effort is going to be misaligned from the outset.”
That is a danger we face today. He talked of how military planners are
“trained to work out the implied tasks as well, to ensure that the campaign plan fulfils entirely what the higher authority's intentions are. In this case, the specified task is the protection of civilians, but the implied task – and the end-state to be achieved – must be the removal of Colonel Gaddafi and his regime”.
At times, the Prime Minister seemed to be talking as though we could just implement a no-fly zone and go home. Of course, we will have to maintain a no-fly zone until the political situation is resolved, otherwise how else is the stalemate to be resolved?
We have a duty to be clear. Either the removal of Gaddafi is the legitimate military aim, or I put it to the Foreign Secretary that we must drop it from our public statements and focus our words on the more limited task we are setting our military. We cannot do both. Clausewitz again:
“The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation from their purposes.”
The UK has to balance the will to obtain a preferred outcome—Gaddafi’s removal—with the wider issue of security and stability.
