Early Parliamentary General Election
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I welcome the courage that the Prime Minister has shown in taking to the public this question: who do they expect to lead the country for the next five years? Having listened to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), I can honestly assure them that it will not be him. I think that the public will have to think long and hard, because Brexit is happening.
Mrs Main
No. The debate is time-limited, and I want everyone to have a chance to speak.
This not about us in here; it is about delivering to the British public the future that they deserve. It is about delivering the best possible outcome for this country as we leave the European Union. I know that when the election takes place on 8 June, individual Members may well find themselves in difficulties with their constituencies because of whatever views they have expressed about leadership, but I am proud to be standing behind a Prime Minister who has made it brutally clear that this is about not making gains in this place, but delivering a Brexit that is for the good of the European Union, that is not just for—[Interruption.] Well, it is for the good of the European Union as well, because our future relationship with the European Union will be hugely important.
The question that will be posed in our constituencies is this: which of the party leaders who could be Prime Minister should be Prime Minister after the election? That is what we will be asking the country. Does the country believe that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) could lead it? I suspect that a large number of the right hon. Gentleman’s Back-Bench colleagues would say no, and that the businesses in my constituency would say no as well. Does the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron)—his voting record and attendance in the House, along with those of his colleagues, is generally pretty low; two Liberal Democrats are present today, but none were here to vote on the Budget yesterday—really believe that he can lead the country? I suggest that the answer is no.
I suggest that the British public, when deciding who to vote for on 8 June, will look forward with confidence to a Prime Minister with an increased mandate to take us through the next five years, and I am delighted that she is giving the country this opportunity to examine our record. Since 2010, there has been a 73% drop in youth unemployment in St Albans—[Interruption.] I hear the Liberal Democrats again. I have to say that I hear nothing from the third-placed Liberal Democrat who stood as a candidate in my constituency to defend St Albans. It is surprising that the Liberal Democrats should be more interested in campaigning than in running the country.
Our party and our Government have taken a strong stance. As I said, youth unemployment in St Albans has fallen by two thirds since 2010, and there has also been a 76% increase in the number of young people taking up apprenticeships. That is the record that we will be putting to the public. Brexit is happening and we are going to make the best of it. Our Prime Minister should not have to suffer 100 unelected Liberal Democrats in the other place, and nine in this place who rarely turn up, trying to tug her tail.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I hope that I can take up less time than that, Mr Speaker.
It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. I had hoped to hear him rule out coming into a coalition with us, because I can tell him that there is no chance that those on the Conservative Benches would want him in our coalition or in any Government.
Party politics are in full swing today, but really this is a good day for Parliament. This is another slight step towards parliamentary democracy and away from diktat by the Executive. The Prime Minister has not called a general election; it is this House that will decide whether there will be a general election. I do not think for one moment that this election has been called for party political reasons. Previous Governments have decided to go early to the country; they were able to choose to go to the country for reasons of political advantage. This gave great power to the Executive. However, a strange set of circumstances has come about. We have had a change of Prime Minister and a change of all the senior Ministers. We have moved from having a Government who were anti-Brexit to one who are pro-Brexit.
That is why I will cast my vote today in support of the Government motion. It is up to each Member to make their own decision. I believe that this proves that the Fixed- term Parliaments Act 2011 is working—[Interruption.] If Members disagree, they can vote against the motion.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman says that Parliament will decide on this question, but the Prime Minister went on television yesterday and staked her reputation across the world by declaring that there would be a general election. If she does not get the support of 422 MPs and a two-thirds majority today, would such a public humiliation mean that she had to resign?
Mr Bone
This illustrates the advantage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. If the House does not agree to a general election, it will not happen and the Government will continue in office. Any Opposition Members who did not want a general election would be very strange creatures indeed. Any Opposition Members who sat on their hands and did not vote would be regarded as impotent Members of Parliament. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his mind up and cast his vote one way or the other.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I support the motion because, as a Government Member said earlier, it seems rather bizarre that the Opposition should say, “We want to keep a Tory Government in power.” That just makes no sense. We have to put our case to the British people and see what happens. We have arrived today at a point that I always thought was inevitable. This was bound to happen. I never bought all that guff about “no election”. There is a political dynamic at work here that has made this decision almost inevitable.
Mr MacNeil
Given that the hon. Gentleman is going to support the Government motion, is he confident that a Tory Government will not return after the election with two more years in power? What does he think will happen? What is the follow-through on his actions?
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) goaded Labour Members over not being turkeys voting for Christmas, but they will be more than turkeys voting for Christmas if they follow the Prime Minister and dance to her tune—they will be turkeys ready to jump into the baking tin. That is exactly what they are doing. The Prime Minister needs 433 MPs to support her today. She has gone on television and told the world that there will be a general election. If Parliament does not back her—if Labour MPs do not dance to her tune—and she does not get the 433, will she resign? The answer on that could change the views of Labour Members as to whether to dance to her tune.
Oral Answers to Questions
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
My hon. Friend is correct. It is absolutely right to highlight the fact that the market for Scottish goods and services in the rest of the United Kingdom is four times greater than that market in the EU. The UK is the vital Union for Scotland.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
In the last few years, Iceland and Ireland have leapfrogged the UK in terms of growth and deficit reduction, and they have always had a higher GDP per capita over the last 10 years. Norway’s oil fund is now $920 billion, having grown by $105 billion from $815 billion. The equivalent figures for the UK are zero, zero and zero. Does the Secretary of State not agree that Scotland could be as good as tiny Iceland, as good as Ireland and even as good as Norway with our independence? What is he scared of for Scotland?
David Mundell
I well remember when the SNP advocated the “arc of prosperity” for Ireland, Scotland and Iceland. I very much doubt that the people of Scotland would want to endure the pain that the people of both Iceland and Ireland have endured to ensure that their economies are back on a stable footing.
Article 50
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The task that this House will have of putting through the great repeal Bill and other necessary legislation will, of course, be an important part of the process of delivering on the deal that we need at the end of this negotiation that we are entering into. I have every confidence that Members on both sides of the House, of all views and from all sides of the argument in the past, will come together and ensure that we work together to get the best possible deal.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
With us having a maximum of 72 weeks in which to negotiate a UK-EU trade deal, the future for Scotland is very clear: independence in Europe, or go it alone with Westminster. Have the Government thought of rejoining the European Free Trade Association, or will the Prime Minister totally go it alone and be in absolutely no regional trade agreement at all—a situation shared only by East Timor, Somalia, South Sudan, Mauritania and São Tomé and Príncipe in the gulf of Guinea—because that is where she is taking the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
I have said right from the beginning that, given the position of the United Kingdom, we want to negotiate a deal that is right for the United Kingdom. That means not taking off the shelf an arrangement that other countries have, but asking what works for the UK and the EU, given the relationship we have had, given that we have been members of the EU, given the size of our economy, and given the benefits to us and the EU of getting such a comprehensive free trade deal.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is a jovial jackanapes, so I think we should put him out of his misery and hear from the feller.
Mr Speaker
We have already heard from the feller—I had forgotten. I do apologise. [Hon. Members: “More!”] No, once is enough. I call Dr Rupa Huq.
Oral Answers to Questions
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I recognise the passion with which my hon. Friend always raises issues about the armed forces. He raises an important point, but I can assure him that we are fully committed to our goal of an 82,000-strong Army by 2020. On his specific point about service accommodation, we want to ensure that people have a greater choice in where they live by using private accommodation and meeting their aspirations for home ownership. That is why we set up the £200 million forces Help to Buy scheme and continue to support subsidised housing for service personnel—the pot of money will not be cut. The Ministry of Defence is working with the Treasury on the issues my hon. Friend raises, and I am sure that they will keep him updated.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Oral Answers to Questions
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
My hon. Friend may be aware that today, in relation to labour market statistics, unemployment is up in Scotland, employment is down, and economic activity is also down. I am in no doubt that the uncertainty caused by the constant reference to an independence referendum is having an impact on the Scottish economy.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
An important part of the Scottish economy is the rural economy, particularly crofting. Yesterday I asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what exactly, after her careful thinking and planning, would happen to crofting after 2020. The Secretary of State for Scotland set out earlier that he thought that there would be no cuts to funding. Is it the case that we will we see no cuts at all to agricultural support in Scotland post-2020? Will he confirm what he alluded to earlier?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman has already heard me answer that question. I have set out that leaving the common agricultural policy is an opportunity. The common agricultural policy has not suited Scotland, particularly those farming in less favoured areas. We now have an opportunity to do something different—we should seize it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
All Members have access to the minutes of the last meeting of the joint welfare group between myself and Scottish Government Ministers. Those minutes confirm that the introduction of the welfare powers in Scotland is indeed being delayed, potentially until 2020.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State consider the transfer of power on visas to the Scottish Government? In the Outer Hebrides, fishing boats are currently tied up because the UK Government will not enable non-EEA fishermen to come in and work on them. People are welcome and are required, but they are blocked from economic activity by the UK Government. This threatens jobs and industries in the Outer Hebrides. Will he act and do something about it, or will he do nothing as usual?
David Mundell
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, which others have also expressed. There are specific rules on who can work on fishing boats, but immigration remains a reserved issue and the responsibility of the Home Office.
UK's Nuclear Deterrent
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn
If this is all about controlling them, perhaps we should think for a moment about the obligations we have signed up to as a nation by signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, article VI of which says that the declared nuclear weapons states—of which we are one—must take steps towards disarmament, and others must not acquire nuclear weapons. It has not been easy, but the NPT has helped to reduce the level of nuclear weapons around the world.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I am stunned to hear the argument that has just been made from the Tory Benches that we cannot disinvent nuclear weapons. That argument could be employed for chemical and biological weapons.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have achieved the chemical weapons convention, a ban on cluster weapons and other things around the world through serious long-term negotiation.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have often had the pleasure of debating this topic with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), both in and outside the House, but never in either of our wildest dreams or nightmares did we imagine that one day he would end up as leader of the Labour party. It only goes to show the unpredictability of political developments.
After the Falklands war, opponents of our strategic deterrent often pointed out that our Polaris submarines had done nothing to deter Argentina from invading the islands. However, there never was and never will be any prospect of a democratic Britain threatening to launch our nuclear missiles except in response to the use of mass destruction weapons against us. But just because we would baulk at threatening to launch nuclear weapons except when our very existence was at stake, that does not mean that dictators share our scruples, our values or our sense of self-restraint.
An example from history will do. Following the horror of the poison gas attacks in the first world war, it was widely expected that any future major conflict would involve large-scale aerial bombardments drenching cities and peoples with lethal gases. Why did Hitler not do that? Because Churchill had warned him that British stocks of chemical weapons greatly exceeded his own, and that our retaliation would dwarf anything that Nazi Germany could inflict. Poison gases are not mass destruction weapons, but nerve gases are, and Hitler seriously considered using them against the allies in 1943. He did not do so because his principal scientist, Otto Ambros, advised him that the allies had almost certainly invented them too. In fact, we had done no such thing and were horrified to discover the Nazi stocks of Tabun nerve gas at the end of the war. That was a classic example of a dictator being deterred from using a mass destruction weapon by the mistaken belief that we could retaliate in kind when actually we could not. Such examples show in concrete terms why the concept of deterrence is so important in constraining the military options available to dictators and aggressors.
I shall briefly list the five main military arguments in favour of continuing the specific British policy—pursued by successive Labour and Conservative Governments—of maintaining, at all times, a British minimum strategic nuclear retaliatory capacity.
The first military argument is that future military threats and conflicts will be no more predictable than those that engulfed us throughout the 20th century. That is the overriding justification for preserving the armed forces in peacetime as a national insurance policy. No one knows which enemies might confront us between the years 2030 and 2060—the anticipated lifespan of the Trident successor system—but it is highly probable that at least some of those enemies will be armed with mass destruction weapons.
Dr Lewis
No, I am sorry. I normally like to take interventions, but I will not, because of the time pressure.
The second argument is that it is not the weapons themselves that we have to fear but the nature of the regimes that possess them. Whereas democracies are generally reluctant to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear dictatorships—although they did against Japan in 1945—the reverse is not the case. Let us imagine a non-nuclear Britain in 1982 facing an Argentina in possession of a few tactical nuclear bombs and the means of delivering them. Retaking the islands by conventional means would have been out of the question.
The third argument is that the United Kingdom has traditionally played a more important and decisive role in preserving freedom than other medium-sized states have been able or willing to do. Democratic countries without nuclear weapons have little choice but to declare themselves neutral and hope for the best, or to rely on the nuclear umbrella of powerful allies. The United Kingdom is a nuclear power already, and it is also much harder to defeat by conventional means because of our physical separation from the continent.
The fourth argument is that our prominence as the principal ally of the United States, our strategic geographical position and the fact that we are obviously the junior partner might tempt an aggressor to risk attacking us separately. Given the difficulty of overrunning the United Kingdom with conventional forces, in contrast to our more vulnerable allies, an aggressor could be tempted to use one or more mass destruction weapons against us on the assumption that the United States would not reply on our behalf. Even if that assumption were false, the attacker would find out his terrible mistake when and only when it was too late for all concerned. An independently controlled British nuclear deterrent massively reduces the prospect of such a fatal miscalculation.
The fifth and final military argument is that no quantity of conventional forces can compensate for the military disadvantage that faces a non-nuclear country in a war against a nuclear-armed enemy. The atomic bombing of Japan is especially instructive not only because the Emperor was forced to surrender, but because of the reverse scenario: if Japan had developed atomic bombs and the allies had not, an invasion of Japan to end the war would have been out of the question. The reason why nuclear weapons deter more reliably than conventional ones, despite the huge destructiveness of conventional warfare, is that nuclear destruction is not only unbearable, but unavoidable once the missiles have been launched. The certainty and scale of the potential retaliation mean that no nuclear aggressor can gamble on success and on escaping unacceptable punishment.
Opponents of our Trident deterrent say that it can never be used. The two thirds of the British people who have endorsed our keeping nuclear weapons as long as other countries have them, and continue to endorse that in poll after poll—as well as in two general elections in the 1980s—are better informed. They understand that Trident is in use every day of the week. Its use lies in its ability to deter other states from credibly threatening us with weapons of mass destruction. Of course, the British nuclear deterrent is not a panacea and is not designed to forestall every kind of threat, such as those from stateless terrorist groups, but the threat that it is designed to counter is so overwhelming that no other form of military capability could manage to avert it.
If the consequence of possessing a lethal weapon is that nobody launches it, while the consequence of not possessing it is that someone who does launches it against us, which is the more moral thing to do—to possess the weapon and avoid anyone being attacked, or to renounce it and lay yourself and your country open to obliteration? If possessing a nuclear system and threatening to launch it in retaliation will avert a conflict in which millions would otherwise die, can it seriously be claimed that the more ethical policy is to renounce the weapon and let the millions meet their fate? Even if one argues that the threat to retaliate is itself immoral, is it as immoral as the failure to forestall so many preventable deaths?
Moral choices are, more often than not, choices to determine the lesser of two evils. The possession of the nuclear deterrent may be unpleasant, but it is an unpleasant necessity, the purpose of which lies not in its ever being fired but in its nature as the ultimate insurance policy against unpredictable, future, existential threats. It is the ultimate stalemate weapon, and in the nuclear age stalemate is the most reliable source of security available to us all.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Margaret Thatcher and, I believe, Tony Benn used to say that there are no final victories in politics. Despite the storms of past controversies and the hard work required to win important arguments, some arguments need to be won again and again, by each generation in turn, and so we are here again today. Some politicians talk as though a world without nuclear weapons were a possibility that could be realised, or at least seriously advanced, by our giving up our own unilaterally; as if the threat from nuclear armed states is not real, growing and still unanswered; and as if Britain should, in these times of all times—these post-Brexit times when we need our friends and allies more than ever—step back from our own defence and that of our allies. In essence, whether opponents say it or not, they suggest that we should piggy-back on our already stretched friends.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is a defender of the idea of a nuclear deterrent and the deterrent effect. Does he follow that logical train of thought and therefore stretch to agreeing with biological and chemical deterrents?
Robert Jenrick
Today, we are discussing the nuclear deterrent.
We have heard some curious arguments tonight. We have heard an argument that this is all about cost, but security is not about cost; security is the foundation of everything we hold dear. Without security, there is nothing. Without security, the costs are incalculable.
Nuclear deterrence has preserved the security and stability of this country for half a century. When I was a teenager, our national response to what appeared to be the end of the Soviet menace in the 1990s was to plan for a reduction in the size of our nuclear arsenal, without abandoning our commitment to an independent deterrent capability. That was then a sensible way to hedge against unpredictable future threats to this country’s vital interests. It was the right approach then and it is the right approach again today.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The past is a poor predictor of the future. Looking back at our own history, we can say that we are not good at predicting the future.
Thirdly, as the Prime Minister has said, we cannot outsource our security—or rather, we can, but we take a grave risk if we do so. In the early post-cold war period, the willingness of the United States to stand with its allies—
Mr MacNeil
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way in the last 10 seconds of his speech. Is he aware of the book by Peter Oborne in which the author tells of the Iranian leadership describing nuclear weapons as “haram”?
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), even though I disagree with the points that he made.
This is an interesting debate for me, because when I was growing up my father worked in the Devonport dockyard on the refits of the Vanguard-class submarines. I remember the campaign back in the early 1990s to get that refit work done in Plymouth rather than having it end up in Rosyth, and we can still see the hole that exists there.
Mr MacNeil
Given that we have heard in the past that it was too dangerous to put the nukes in Devonport, as a keenster on the nukes, would the hon. Gentleman have nuclear weapons based in Devonport?
Kevin Foster
Before the proposal for independence was rejected in the referendum, there was a debate about whether we would have the nuclear weapons in the south-west, and I think most people said, “Yes, of course we will.” Other MPs representing the south-west have spoken in the debate, and we would certainly welcome the jobs and investment involved.
Let us be clear about the choice before the House today. It is whether to have a deterrent. I have listened to some of the alternatives that have been put forward today, and I think the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) would find it useful to visit Coulport and see what is actually there. That might help his knowledge. It has been suggested that we might put something on an Astute-class submarine. I think it is safe to say that no nation, seeing a cruise missile coming towards it, is going to wait until the thing detonates to find out whether it is a conventional missile or a nuclear missile. That proposal would also involve far more risk to the submariners, because they would have to get much closer to the country that we were deterring. The operations would also have to become more sneaky. People might think that a submarine might want to act sneakily in order to remain hidden, but that is not the case. The idea behind a ballistic missile capability is that it assures people that we can provide a credible deterrent and a credible response to a nuclear attack, either on ourselves or on our allies, but also that it provides other nations with an assurance that we are not planning a sneaky first strike. If we had the kind of technology that some have suggested, it would simply undermine the situation and provoke worry and fear in others.
It is also worth looking at what we have done to reduce our own nuclear weapons. The RAF no longer has strategic bombers, and we have also removed the weapons from Royal Navy shipping. I think that we are the only one of the declared nuclear powers that has nuclear weapons on one platform only. That is the real way to reduce the nuclear threat, not through some gesture towards disarmament.
Is the nuclear deterrent still needed? To answer that question, we need to look at the alternatives. One of the alternatives put forward is to rely on article V of the north Atlantic treaty—that is what the SNP proposes. NATO is not just a conventional alliance but a nuclear one, yet the SNP would wish to join it. I find it interesting that the SNP wants a nuclear-weapons-free Scotland, yet when I enjoyed all 670 pages of “Scotland’s Future”—the White Paper for independence—I found that it contained the classic comment that the SNP would still allow NATO vessels to visit without confirming or denying whether they carried nuclear weapons. In effect, the SNP’s own version of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” A big ballistic submarine could still pull up, but that would be all right, because the SNP would not have asked the question.
European Council
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Look at the figures and at what is happening to some of the poorest families in our country, who are able now to get jobs, to get work and to pay less tax, and who will be getting a £900-a-year pay rise through the national living wage. That is what is happening for those families. In terms of people at the top, the top 1% are paying a higher percentage of income tax than they ever did under Labour—some 27% of the total. With a growing economy, that means that we can also build a fairer society.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Amazingly, a few moments ago I heard the Prime Minister praise an independent Ireland and in the same breath slag off the idea of Scotland matching the possibilities that Ireland has today.
Now to the matter at hand. It is claimed that the Government took aim at the poor because they do not vote Tory. A wee while ago, the Government tried to mug Scotland for £7 billion, presumably for the very same reason. Who else in this society does the Prime Minister have in his sights?
The Prime Minister
I do not think that the Irish based their entire case on oil revenues that disappeared. [Interruption.] Oh, that was not the plan. I seem to remember that the plan was referring to $100-a-barrel oil as a modest, mid-market—[Interruption.] You can tell they do not like it. When you are shouting, you are losing.
ISIL in Syria
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Alan Duncan
No.
Thirdly, we have to see this threat in the context of even greater regional dangers. We are witnessing the collapse of nation states across potentially the whole of Arabia, along with the violent release of centuries of sectarian hatred. A crucial element of our policy should be to try to stop this spreading. That means that we must support stable rule within the six countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council. Those who just attack the conduct of our Gulf allies simply do not understand the horror that would be unleashed by further instability in the region. Even now, we face the real prospect of an arc of brutality and terrorism stretching from Syria, through Iraq to Yemen, and right across in a terrifying link with the horn of Africa.
Fourthly, we cannot turn away from this threat and subcontract our obligations. If we are to pursue the destruction of ISIS/Daesh, rebuild stable government, underpin wider stability and make all of that—
Sir Alan Duncan
No. And make all of that a serious and convincing objective of our foreign policy, we must be part of the convoy that is trying to do it. We cannot negligently—as I would see it—watch it roll by while not playing our part. Put frankly, our international reputation has suffered from the parliamentary vote in August 2013. Our allies now question—
Sir Alan Duncan
No. Our allies now question whether we can be relied upon when they call for joint assistance. If we choose today to remain on the sidelines, especially when a new and unequivocal UN resolution is in place, it will signal to the world that the UK has, indeed, chosen to withdraw. We should not be in the business of national resignation from the world stage. Perhaps the paradox of our position today is not that we are doing too much, but that we are doing too little.
If I do have a concern—again, I look directly at the Leader of the Opposition—it is that the action I hope we will vote for tonight is not the whole answer, and the Prime Minister is not pretending that it is. The hope that local, so-called moderate forces can do the job on the ground and somehow put Humpty Dumpty together again is, of course, more of an act of faith than a certain plan, but it is wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to dismiss their significance and conclude that their composition is sufficient reason to do nothing.
I think we should carry this motion tonight. We have to carry it with our eyes open, knowing that we are flying into a mess that shows no easy prospect of being quickly resolved, but we cannot leave a vile force unchallenged. These air strikes do matter. I believe they are justified, but I also think that the future judgment of the Prime Minister about what then follows will eventually become more important than the decision we will take tonight.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
In essence, this debate boils down to UK RAF jets going into Syria, into a war that is already in existence—a multi-cornered and multifaceted war. It is not the great squadrons imagined in the press, or in the minds of the public as a result of what has been put into their minds by the press. It is, as we have heard, eight jets, and as the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee told me, probably only two would be active at any one time on any day in Syria.
For context—I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for this—there have been 57,000 sorties in Syria, in 8,000 of which bombs have been dropped, in 17 months. That is 113 sorties a day, with 16 of them dropping bombs. We will deflect from what we are doing in Iraq, where 10% of sorties are by the UK. I asked the Prime Minister last week whether bombing Syria would mean bombing ISIL less in Iraq. He has made the choice to bomb ISIL in Iraq. He could not answer my question, though he should have been able to. He then claimed that he would have 75,000 Free Syrian Army troops. I have to tell the House that the Americans tried to raise a force of moderates and mobilise them, but it failed. David Wearing, who lectures on middle east politics in the University of London, explained on CNN:
“A US initiative to stand up even a 15,000 strong ‘moderate’ force to confront ISIS recently collapsed in failure, having put less than a half a dozen troops onto the battlefield.”
Mr Grieve
The one issue that does not seem to feature in the hon. Gentleman’s discourse, or that of any members of his party, is what would have happened if there had been no intervention in Iraq at all. Surely the consequences might well have been that Daesh spread very quickly and caused a generalised conflict. Ignoring that point seems remarkably selective on the part of those who argue that we should not take further steps now. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman cared to address that point.
Mr MacNeil
The right hon. and learned Gentleman might like to know something about the interventions in Iraq. Martin Chulov, an Australian who works for The Guardian, and who just got an award from the Foreign Press Association, noted, after speaking to ISIS commanders, that they were incubated in the American camps in Iraq. That is what intervention has done. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that that is the result of intervention.
Only two months ago, one of the central views of the United States and its allied was that Russian involvement in Syria would only fuel more radicalism and extremism. Mehdi Hasan in The Guardian noted that the United States Defence Secretary, Ashton Carter, had warned of the “consequences for Russia itself”, which would become “rightly fearful” of terrorism. A point that is almost central to the public debate and discourse here in the United Kingdom in general, and in the House in particular, is that involvement in disastrous wars increases rather than decreases the threats to us in the west. I am also grateful to Mehdi Hasan for reporting the words of retired US general Mike Flynn, who used to run the US Defence Intelligence Agency, and who said
“the more bombs we drop, that just…fuels the conflict”.
That is a very hard truth for some to hear, but it is indeed the truth.
The “war on terror” started by George W. Bush was straight from the “must do something” school of thought, a school of thought that is all too prevalent in the House today. It turned a few hundred terrorists in the Hindu Kush into a force of 100,000, almost globally—they were certainly active in 20 countries—and employed the classic recruiting tactics of the unjust war in Iraq, based on lies. Twelve years ago, the “must do something” rhetoric in the UK involved talk of “appeasement” and attempts were made to conjure up images of Neville Chamberlain, but all the while the unseen appeasement was that of George Bush by the poodle that we had as the UK leader, Tony Blair.
As the writer Jürgen Todenhöfer said in a recent article in The Guardian,
“War is a boomerang, and it will come to hit us back in the form of terrorism.”
We must be honest with the people about that very real possibility. The Daily Telegraph said as much recently when reporting the crash of the Russian Metrojet aircraft in Egypt, which it described as a direct consequence of Russia’s involvement in Syria. It went further, suggesting that Putin might have incited that attack on the Russians. We have to be very sure that we see in our own eyes what we see in the eyes of others.
What do we have in Syria? We have 10 countries bombing, we have Kurds fighting, and we have the Free Syrian Army, which, as we were told earlier by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, is a ragbag of 58 separate factions. We have Assad, and we have Daesh/ISIL. Meanwhile, significantly, Russia bombs our allies but it seems that we will not, or cannot, bomb theirs. We have Turkey bombing a Russian plane, and bombing the Kurds as well. When the Turks bombed the Russian plane, they were taunted by the Greeks; both are members of NATO. Throw in America, France, the United Kingdom and the regional powers, and we have the powder keg of 1914, of which we seem blissfully unaware. All in all, we have a debate about two jets that has led us into something that we should not be going into.
As will be clear to the House, I am against this action for many reasons, but I am also against the way in which the Government are handling the issue. They should have provided more time. They should not have bumped the House into this yesterday, and they know that full well. The United Kingdom is caught between its time of empire and Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex. For that reason, we are being urged that something must be done, even if it is the wrong thing.
National Security and Defence
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I think that the Typhoon is proving itself, not just in Britain but elsewhere in the world, as an absolute world leader in terms of its capabilities. What this review delivers—my hon. Friend will be able to read about it more detail—is a further upgrade of the Typhoon aircraft with the vital e-scan radar and the more modern weapons systems that it needs, so that it is good both as an air-to-air fighter and as a ground-to-air fighter. With that and the news about the extra Typhoons, I think Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend can look forward to very strong defences in the years ahead.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
As we know, the UK is bombing ISIL in Iraq and we know that the Government want to bomb ISIL in Syria, so we have to ask the question whether the Government want to bomb ISIL less in Iraq or are they currently not bombing ISIL in Iraq to their full capability?
The Prime Minister
The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that the border between Iraq and Syria is not recognised by ISIL. It is literally a line in the sand, so it makes no sense, if we want to degrade and destroy ISIL, to restrict our activities—given that we have some of the most professional and dedicated pilots and some of the most efficient equipment anywhere in the world—purely to Iraq.