Britain’s future strategic direction #6 – UKNDA: Is it truly ridiculous to demand more money?

The previous articles in this series have looked at Britain’s Great Power potential through the prism of its key strategic abilities. The prism itself is the RUSI FDR policy papers that particularized the doctrines; Global Guardian, Strategic Raiding, and Contributory, which alongside the Strategic Deterrent neatly encapsulate the core ambitions of the 1998 Strategic Defence Review. This series of articles has also accepted the précis of the third RUSI paper which outlined the coming cuts that will need to be made if Defence is to live comfortably within its current budget. The thrust of this article is to ask the question; should we not expect more if that is what Britain’s strategic interests demand?

This perhaps is the greatest flaw in the the RUSI and IPPR FDR policy papers; that they run scared of post-recession austerity under the presumption that politicians won’t have any interest in properly funding Defence at a time when the electorate is howling at them to reduce deficits and lower taxes.

It is here that the United Kingdom National Defence Association has proved particularly refreshing, with their consistent and forthright argument that Defence is underfunded and cannot continue to guarantee Britain’s safety if the situation is not rectified. Their most recent paper; UK Defence Needs carries this position admirably:

According to the present Prime Minister:

“The first priority of any government is to provide security for its people.”

If this means anything it is that defence provision must be directly related to the threats to our security; that is it must be threat driven not budget driven.

Yet, sadly, his political rhetoric has not been met by his economic largesse. Defence spending, at just 2.2% of the UK’s GDP, has never been lower. The cash budget allocated to defence is half that spent on loan interest payments, half that on education, half that on health and half that on the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. It is even (roughly) half the budget for the Department of Work & Pensions.

It is notable that the Conservatives also claim that any future Defence Review would be policy driven rather than budget driven, but you will forgive this blog some small scepticism over that absolute sincerity of the statement.

The document goes on to say:

The Review must assess how and where the country will be allied. Is the future strategy to be found in a re-worked NATO, based on a trans-Atlantic collective security or, as the IPPR contend upon an EU orientation. What would our future allies offer, and what, in turn, would the UK be expected to contribute? When and where would Britain have to act alone?

Here the UKNDA are in agreement with RUSI, and in direct opposition to the IPPR contention that Britain’s day of independent action are over. This blog agrees that Great Power status demands independent strategic capability, and that Great Power status is a priceless asset to possess, therefore a coalition future a-la the Contributory doctrine sells the country short.

The Review must be entirely honest in fully recognizing that that most of Britain’s wars in the last 100 years were unforeseen, including all of the last five wars since 1997 (Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan). Hence, whatever levels of assurance the Review team attach to their strategic threat assessments they will need to be clear that the most likely challenges the UK will face in the next 20 years will continue to be entirely unexpected, surprising and unfunded. Whatever capabilities and force levels that have been elaborated, it will be vital to have sufficient margin in all three services to meet the unpredictable.

This is a clear argument to retain Britain as a broad-spectrum Great Power, in opposition to the RUSI strategy of narrowly focused power projection. Neither argument is contradictory given that they work from different base economic assumptions, however this blog recognises the inherent wisdom of both arguments. Force must not be diffused to the point where it no longer represents a strategic capability, and yet to narrowly focus on too few capabilities could be very dangerous in an uncertain future.

The issue of transparency. Once the range of threats and their counters have been elaborated then the electorate must be fully informed and the appropriate resources made available by statute of Parliament. Defence provision cannot be subject to short-term political fiat – merely a wish-list conjured up by a Treasury defence team to meet regional employment or other economic criteria. The whole country must sign up to the methodology of meeting Britain’s strategic needs. Never again must defence be a milch cow for profligacy elsewhere.

This point is an unambiguous statement of distrust in the political parties to make good on their promise of a policy driven Defence Review. This blog also has grave doubts about the commitment of politicians to properly fund Defence, especially when the global financial crisis gives them such a convenient excuse for cutting spending and controlling budgets.

Based on the principle that there are no votes in Defence, we can be certain that politicians will continue to view Defence as a handy pot of money to dip into for the pet-projects, and given that the Defence of the Realm is supposed to be the first duty of the sovereign nation state, this blog proposes the following:

1 Legislate a minimum peacetime Defence budget of 2.5% of GDP
Was 3.5% in 1990, was supposed to remain at 2.5%, now down to 2.2% of GDP

2. Have a standing parliamentary commission to determine if we are in fact at peace
And to mandate the appropriate increase if we are not; prevents under-resourcing

3. Legislate all operational costs to be reviewed authorised by the standing committee
Prevents the Treasury clawing back UOR money, or ignoring attrition as an operational cost

4. Provide a ten year boost to defence spending in order to make good a decade of underfunding
Would allow the Defence procurement budget to be brought back on track, and therefore relieve pressure on wages

Turn the argument on its head; by all means have a policy-led Defence Review, but underpin it with an economic floor through which the Defence budget will not sink. Currently only UKIP have made such a policy commitment, but this blog would be delighted to see the mainstream parties steal its clothes.

Further on in UK Defence Needs a very important point is made:

Facile comparisons such as ‘hospitals or guns’ need to be replaced by true cost-benefit analysis. What, for example, is the marginal increase in benefit from another £1bn spent on a Health Service of £82bns compared with that same £1bn spent in a seriously underfunded defence budget of well under half?

Or, conversely what are the real implications of £1bn removed? The debate will need informed leadership from the highest level so that principles can be properly adhered to and then capabilities honestly resourced and guaranteed. It is undeniably true that we can have Armed Forces much smaller than those that we have now, but at a heavy strategic price and increased risk. What we can no longer afford is to pretend that the risks to our security are few and easily controlled, that we can shelter under another power’s umbrella, that a state’s ‘intentions’ are more important than its military capability, and that we can send too few armed forces into a battle, any battle, for which they are untrained, under-equipped or unsupported.

The logical fallacy that it is inconsistent to support reduced government spending whilst at the same time calling for increased Defence spending must be challenged, and it must be challenged by pointing out how small a portion of total government spending Defence now represents.

Here we get to the meat of the argument; how much, and for how long:

The further good news is that while the much needed efficiency drive in the MoD gets under way, capable of saving perhaps £3bn-£4bn per annum, the Strategic Review will also take place. While that review will almost certainly identify the need for net increases in defence expenditure – much cheaper than running otherwise serious risks and suffering large economic losses – such increases – given the nature of defence expenditure programmes – can mainly begin only slowly from 2011. They are likely to be of the order of £4bn-£5bn in the first year, rising to perhaps £12bn in the third year (2013) and then levelling out. By then the worst of the recession will be over and economic growth will have resumed, making the expenditures both more bearable and affordable. Thus the justifiable interest of both the Treasury and MoD should be capable of being met. The long-term security of Britain can still be met provided that there are no more ill-considered short-term cuts, that undeniable shortfalls are quickly met and an absolute commitment given to provide whatever resources the Strategic Review shows to be necessary.

The twin pillars of Britain’s defence since World War II have been the Special Relationship with the United States and the NATO alliance to which Britain’s contribution has been second only to that of America. Unless we restore our defence capability both the Special Relationship and NATO cohesion are at risk, which would leave us seriously exposed.

There is a last and particularly important reason for Britain to raise her defence contribution and make it once again the top national priority. Britain is one of the leading nations below the big superpowers of America and China. If Britain does not raise her defence funding – then we must be prepared to give up our Security Council seat at the United Nations.

My real worry is that the UKNDA are being very optimistic about how much extra cash the politicians will allow to slip through their grasp in the name of a ‘policy-led’ Defence Review, a fact compounded by their optimism over how much strategic capability can be maintained even with that level of increase. They risk winning the battle but losing the war, as the increased budget allocation would be spread too thinly around the three services, and as a consequence capabilities watered down too much to retain strategic significance.

The UKNDA wishes to fund the SDR98, which is a noble goal as it was a very sensible document in its objectives, but if you split the difference between RUSI’s pessimism and the UKNDA’s optimism you still fall far short of 2.7% of GDP, especially when one considers this budget was barely adequate before a decade of underfunding, and a decade of unplanned wars are taken into consideration.

To bring this back to the strategic capabilities exposed by the RUSI prism, we have:

  1. A large, broad spectrum army capable of fighting protracted and high-intensity wars.
  2. A naval capability that allowed rapid over-the-horizon forced-entry engagements.
  3. Ability to conduct theatre level operations out of area, with the C4ISTAR that entails.
  4. A Strategic Deterrent that for reasons of history brings significant political influence.

RUSI argue that it will be possible to maintain two of the above on a budget of £35b/year, with the implicit assumption that one of those two will be a strategic deterrent.

UKNDA argue that we need to keep all four strategic capabilities which will require the defence budget to increase to around £45b/year and grow healthily from there on in.

Jedibeeftrix makes the following argument, based on principles brilliantly illustrated by Critical Reaction:

Compared to any other state with our pretensions, we face no fundamental challenges. France faces Germany, Germany faces Russia (and France, and her sense of herself), Japan faces China, China faces America, and America, well poor, hegemonic America seems to face the world. But Britain faces no one.

Looked at this way, we’re the envy of the world, for whose geopolitical prospects are easier? Even in Western Europe, who seriously can compare British freedom of action with the permanent, existential dilemma of French foreign policy (toujours Berlin, or never Berlin?) or the stasis occupied and neutered Germany still can’t escape from?

For a foreign policy of choice, we need a defence policy that reflects and underpins that Heaven-sent freedom of opportunity. The Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales might well be justified on paper as devices to ‘project power’, but what they really represent is the ability, if chosen, to act alone.

It might seem paradoxical in the context of a foreign policy that should strive after inaction to preserve the ability to act above all else, but in truth, it is the same Tory impulse throughout: when we don’t need to act, we shouldn’t, but when we do, we must, as the very cornerstone of our patriotism, ensure that we can.

As long as there is a strategic deterrent conventional war against the British Isles is an impossibility, this is further reinforced by a Royal Navy that can ensure conventional threats cannot even enter home waters. The logical extension of a strategy the includes the navy is an expeditionary structure, as described by the RUSI doctrine termed Strategic Raiding. There is however a need to maintain a more plural capability to preserve key war-fighting skills, and here we enter the realm of the UKNDA analysis with its call to spend on Defence that which is necessary to preserve Britain’s strategic interests.

Where this blog differs from UKNDA is its pessimism in persuading a country recovering from recession to fund the SDR 98, and where it differs from RUSI is its scepticism that becoming so narrowly focussed on two key abilities will maintain our influence in the halls of power. There is a case to be made for preserving at least three of the four strategic capabilities, and for asking the electorate for an increase in Defence spending to do so.

Update – 28/04/10

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Menevia, Tom Burns, showing a clarity of vision that our political masters clearly lack:

He said: “To our politicians and civil servants I ask these questions: When will Afghan institutions rise out of the dust to take responsibility for their own affairs?

“When will there be a surge in funding to achieve this and for ongoing military vehicles, more and better helicopters and better intelligence – all of which are so badly needed?

“If this were done surely this will mean fewer lives will be sacrificed in the future.”

6 responses to “Britain’s future strategic direction #6 – UKNDA: Is it truly ridiculous to demand more money?

  1. Another superb post Mt Trix!

    The problem I find with the UKNDA is they seem like a load of crusty old Admirals and Generals who want more more more planes and ships.

    Whatever the quality of their argument they simply think the answer is more cash. Our position has always been that the answer is not only more money but BETTER SPENDING.

    We do not have a small defence budget but we waste enormous sums and the responsibility for this lies firmly with the triumvirate of politicians, MoD civil servants and the military. Simply blaming the politician is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

    The point made about wars being unexpected is a little obvious, all wars are unexpected.

    I like your suggestions but we always seem to concentrate on equipment programmes as the natural recipient of any extra spending when in reality it is the unseen things that return greatest effect; maintenance, spares and training for example. We might have loads of helicopters or mine protected vehicles but it is no good if they become hangar or garage queens, stripped of parts in order to support the few that are in use because we haven’t bought enough spares.

    It is these unseen areas that we need to concentrate on

    UKNDA and others view the SDR98 as the holy grail and whilst it was a sensible and comprehensive bit of work it is hopelessly outdated but back to my point about crusty old admirals, it guarantees a strong navy and air force but reduces the army.

    Your point about the RN keeping home waters free of threats is also equally valid for the RAF, either in support of maritime operations with Nimrod (including the vital role of protected the Vanguards) and against airborne threats

    We have looked at the issues here

    I also asked the question, would a budget reduction actually be a bad thing, forcing the MoD to shed fat, innovate and seek sensible solutions

  2. My thanks,

    I recognise your point about admirals, generals and marshals and their desire to acquire toys as an indicator of relative importance in the UK Armed Forces pecking order, but to be fair to the UKNDA they dedicated a significant portion of the report to achieving efficiencies within the MOD.

    It is a principled and valid argument that Defence is underfunded, and someone needs to volubly make that argument otherwise Defence becomes the perpetual victim of low expectations.

    I also agree totally on the point of maintenance, spares and training, particularly as the term “harbour-queen” has almost become the definition of a useless military resource, and it is for this reason as much as any other that I continually bang-on about the need to focus our energies on maintaining ‘useful’ capabilities rather than an array of platforms.

    The point about the MRA4’s is well made, that notionally RAF cut will also come to haunt the Navy as they will now have to task a T23 ASW frigate to sanitise the sea-lanes around Faslane every time a SSBN needs to transit into or out of port. At a time of declining escort numbers the Navy just picked up one more standing task, marvellous!

    I am willing to take the UKNDA paper at face value and accept that a few billion in savings could be made annually by a streamlined and functional MOD, this however will not be enough to preserve even three of the four strategic capabilities listed above in the absence of a budget increase.

  3. In direct response to the Question by the UKNDA, No it’s not ridiculous to demand more money not at a time when Government spending constitutes over 50% of GDP and defence is only 2.2% of that. However as Think defence pointed out better spending is also needed alongside more cash and better spending is perhaps going to make the biggest difference as more money will be spent efficiently. I also agree with the point that each of the services themselves should get more money for maintenance, support, spares and training including major training exercises like deploying somewhere to test things. The principle reason is because equipment they have now is what they will use when the brown smelly stuff hits the fan so they better be fully comfortable using it and knowing what it can and cannot do. Knowing that plans should be made or new equipment procured to remedy the problems or deficiencies with current equipment so things don’t go badly when someone is trying to kill you.

    However as we all know it’s a part of human nature to want that new flash toy with all the bells gongs and whistles rather than getting used to and improving the one you already have. New equipment always has to be better and include vocabulary from bullshit bingo such as ‘world beating’ or ‘Paradigm shift’. Sometimes good enough is good enough if it does its job then leave it alone rather than adding things or removing things when a program is already underway as it only adds cost. Most people in real life learn this lesson when they hire builders when they change things they get charged and because it’s their own money have more sense than the MoD spending other people’s money.

  4. Better spending is taken as a given, Defence will not be able to ask for more ‘porridge’ when the MoD is considered to be so wasteful. There is little doubt that the main parties are keen to streamline the MoD, and properly implemented this should bring back some ‘billions’ back into useful play, but that in itself will not be enough.

    New toys syndrome is something everyone is prone to, at least to some degree, what this blog is interested in however is the preservation of strategic capabilities that allow Britain to shape the world in its image, rather than the other way around.

  5. Ground Hog Day. Anne Palmer. 9.2.2010.

    Without doubt “National Security” and “Defence of the REALM” is THE most important job of any British Government and of each and every one of us here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In time of war, we may be conscripted, called upon to serve in one of the British Services. Without the means of defence always at the ready and/or without anyone prepared to defend it, we would soon lose our Country. There would be no British Government or British people. Sadly, from what our Government is doing today, what it is prepared to do is a repeat of what happened in 1939.

    My interest in the subject stems from my youth, having gone through WWII with the sound of and watching on one occasion a so called ‘dog fight’ between a Spitfire and a German ‘plane, and a brother who was ‘plane’ mad who eventually became one of A.V. Roe’s Chief Design Engineers.

    This perhaps is why I find it very difficult to understand what is happening today and why I truly believe our politicians of ‘today’ are so very foolish. It really does seem like Ground Hog Day- no one can ever be free and we have to keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

    Our Government has brought out a Green Paper with their proposals, “Adaptability and Partnership: Issues for the Strategic Defence Review, dated Feb 2010.” Suggestions aired whether to scrap the three major services and amalgamate them into two? Which will go? Our Royal Navy? No more Rule Britannia, Britannia Rules the waves then? The Royal Air-Force? That wonderful force that helped win the Battle of Britain, certainly of the skies. The fantastic pride when we see and hear that one remaining Vulcan Bomber over-head. Or the British Army that is fighting day and night and losing so many soldiers in Afghanistan. Will it be the Royal Air-Force we lose because although we have allegedly ordered two mighty Aircraft Carriers, we have not ordered any new ‘planes, have we?

    One question the Green Paper asks, “Should we further integrate our forces with those key allies and partners?” Definitely NO. All too often ‘friends’, ‘allies’ in today’s world can very quickly become enemies. I remember one of these so called ‘Friends’ in 1991, as our Army was preparing to go to forward to Kuwait, the Belgian Government refused permission for Belgium manufactured artillery shells to be delivered to Britain. If I ask you at this point in time, “Do you trust our politicians”? What would be your answer? Then ask yourself, should we trust foreigners that are politicians? With our defence? Our Security? Our Country?

    There is no Winston Churchill around to save us now. What makes me really angry is that two MP’s have remembered we have our own Constitution (The Bill of Rights 1689) when its suits THEM, but along with all the rest have deliberately ignored it. However, the people haven’t forgotten, and much, if not everything our Parliamentarians are doing and have done may well be contrary to our very own Constitution and particularly the Queen’s Coronation Oath.

    Much of what is happening now began Friday December 4th 1998 between President Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair at St Malo. The actual signing of the Defence Agreement was by Mr Robertson and his French Counterpart Alain Richard on board HMS Birmingham at the Port of St Malo. A letter of intent signalled a move towards the sharing of intelligence, joint planning and transport, even joint media handling. The UK Government made it clear apparently, that it would not surrender the rebate which was secured by the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. If it wasn’t so tragic, it would be laughable

    Our Forces have worked with NATO many times. NATO do not want to “govern us”, they do not make all our laws. We work however, ‘within’ the European Union. I look at the Treaty of Lisbon, Clause 188R, The Solidarity Clause which compels Member States to act together, and I couple that with the SOFA Directive which our Government have ratified in full and there is indeed a great deal of difference between NATO and the EU and the gulf between the two is large indeed.

    What our Government did not explain is that they had, for a number of years, been contributing to The European Defence Agency since 2004. This is recorded in The European Defence Agency 2008 Financial Report June 2009. (Page 29), or the debates on the subject in Hansard in the next paragraph.

    In answer to one recent question (28.1.2010), “UK support of the EU military capability helps strengthen the Common Security and Defence Policy and Europe’s contribution to NATO, both of which are in our national interest”. ”Money to the European Defence Agency is listed as Calendar Year 2008, 3.11 million. 2009, 3.03 million and estimated 4.01 million for 2010. The amount paid to the EDA since it was established in 2004 is given from another paper, as follows in Millions 2004-5 1.56. 2005-6 2.36. 2006-7 2.09. 2007-8 1.59.

    In the 1939-45 war with just one sovereign Houses of Parliament all be it with an extraordinary man to lead this Country through that war, and with the full help of America which we could not have done without (which at no time wanted to Govern us or surrender our Sovereignty to them), that war was won. It did take us 60 years to repay our financial debt to them-yet a small price to pay for without their help we would have been governed by Hitler, then after him, who exactly would be over us? Another tyrant? We have certainly worked with or in a multinational Army before though, the “Allied Army” consisting of Members of the Commonwealth, Australia, New Zealand etc, the free Polish and free French, the Ghurkhas , but they worked with us, at no time did we end up Governing them or they governing us. Who will be in charge of the EU in years to come? How many years will it take us to repay the debt we are in now?

    For many years our forces and equipment have been in line with the USA and NATO, all part of the ‘Special Relationship’ that had been built up over the years. Our Equipment was “compatible” with NATO. Our Forces need the best equipment, they need it on time and they need it to be British made where possible so that they can rely on it, and it can provide work for our own industries. What kind of Country are we if we cannot choose the very best equipment for our own Forces? Our Forces need to know they come first in everything, from their welfare, their accommodation when in the ‘field’ and the best accommodation for their families left at home. Equipment for the defence of our Country must come before all else, and that means before any Treaties deceitfully signed by temporary Governments without agreement by the people of this Country. Treaties that allegedly give the EU ‘competence’ over our ‘Constitution and laws,’ which is contrary to our constitution and a betrayal to the solemn Oaths they so swear before they take up Office. Everything must meet and be up to the standards we expect of them and what is stated in the Military Covenant, for our forces are prepared to lay down their lives for us.

    The ECHR treats members of the Armed Forces as “citizens in Uniform” See Engel v Netherlands (1976). 54”…”The Convention applies in principle to members of the armed forces and not only to civilians”. Tell that to those forces that were scrambling to get out of that burning tank when our Soldiers clothes were on fire.

    Many have been the changes regarding the Defence of the Realm, particularly as our Country got deeper and deeper involved with the European Union. A Dr Sara Beaver in giving ‘evidence’ (Hansard) 10th June said, “It was also recognised at St Malo in 1998 that the EU needed a capacity to do things autonomously, so national headquarters can be used where appropriate. There are the National Headquarters that France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and Greece have offered for that purpose. As you will know there is another question about whether or not there should be a European capability, but one of the key principles for us in the United Kingdom has been to try and minimise any duplication. It would be wrong to say there is no duplication between the Agency and work that is done in NATO, but it will have a different focus”. Later on Dr Javier Solana was interviewed. On page 36 of that paper under the Heading European Commission Green Paper on Defence Procurement, with figures in Billions spent by the EU and the figures given for the UK. It made me wonder if it is wise to tell foreigners what this Country spends in defence of the Realm. A warning voice from the war years whispers in my ears, “Careless talk costs lives”.

    After listening to the Secretary of State for Defence, (Geoff Hoon’s) speech in Parliament 16th December 2004 Col 1794 on the destruction of some of our great Regiments which he named. Michael Ancram, The Shadow Secretary of State remarked, “Behind the spin, the reality is stark. 19 great Regiments gone, infantry battalions cut from 40 to 36, the Army trained establishment cut from its current target of 108,500 to a target of 102,000 by 2008. Today’s announcements are dangerous to our country. In the words of the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, in the Sunday Telegraph last Sunday, the Army “has become dangerously small for what it is being asked to do”. “Today’s statement will make it even smaller. The Secretary of State says that this is all about reorganisation. None of us is against necessary reorganisation, but this statement was driven not by a need to reorganise but by the Chancellor’s demand for financial cuts.” End of quotes.

    I observe that these cuts were made at a time of “terrorism”, where we are being ‘spied’ upon and there is a need to have ID cards with details shared throughout the EU and/or ‘lost’. Throughout this speech not once was the EU mentioned and yes, the TREASURY was blamed for the cuts. Only that there are to be “an impressive re-equipment programme, introducing new communications equipment such as Bowman and Falcon, enhanced intelligence collection assets such as Watchkeeper UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) such as Panther armoured reconnaissance vehicle, and looking ahead, the ambitious FRES (Future Rapid Effect System) “armoured fighting vehicle programme, which will modernise the armoured vehicle fleet and form the basis of the medium weight capability.”

    Over the years since then we have watched, unable to prevent, these wonderful regiments disbanded. Without any doubt at all, it was done to fit in the European Union’s idea of fighting forces. There would have been no change or reduction in our Forces-particularly at this point in time, had it not been for the European Rapid Reaction Force, The Battlegroups, etc, for the autonomous European Army. Equipment changed, compatible more to the EU than to NATO and upon reading the European Defence Agency: Evidence dated 10th 2004 the money required by the EU, funded by our Defence Ministry, and separate, over and above the general EU Budget.

    Why hasn’t anyone from Government told us of these payments over recent years to the European Defence Agency? We have been paying this money when our fighting services have been short of equipment? I hope there is not one present MP re-elected come the next General Election, and no matter what laws they may bring in now, “No Parliament may bind another”. But will any of the three major political Parties change things? Why vote for them when there are other new faces waiting in the wings?

    Slowly, slowly, our Governments have sold off most of our assets, our essential services, in fact everything they could get their hands on. Sold to foreigners to make a “quick buck” rather than keep in the long term and make money as we go along.
    Much, much worse though and quite contrary to our Constitution, our Government would be giving authority over our forces to the EU.

    You. Me, trying to wake people up to what is happening to our Country, and to those in Parliament that DO KNOW to try to get them to know that we know the horror, the great betrayal of what they between them have done. To get the people to work together to put these MP’s out of office come the next General Election, for the whole point of all three has been to get us to vote for any one of those three major Political Parties because they ALL want to remain in the EU.

    The people and this Country have been bled dry by the EU. But the EU is not going to be the “United States of Europe” that Jean Monnet wanted, it is going to be one State of European Union, with its own EU Army, Air-Force and EU Military style Police Force and certainly an EU Navy because we know that is already in operation off Somalia. Unless the people use this very last chance they might have to change things, which is in the General Election by voting for would be MP’s that want a true Government that can actually Govern and make all the Laws according to our Constitution. One that would deliberately repudiate the EU Treaties. Failing that and seeing what Labour has done to our Country in 12 years, I should think the Conservatives will allow the EU to finish off the United Kingdom in five years and ‘welcome’ the fully operational twelve Regions of the EU. No more Ground Hog Day for there might not be a British Government to keep on making the same mistakes.

  6. Thank you Anne, that is a better summation of events that I could have provided, there is a wealth of information in there of which I was dimly aware but unable to source the provenance of.

    Very much agreed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s