Blood and Honey

I think I've been silent long enough and while this is still current, I am minded to write something on the events of the past few days, culminating in the disgraceful display on the floor of the House of Commons on Thursday night. As usual, a little context, just in case anyone has missed anything, although I suspect that only applies to that nice family from Croydon to whom I'm renting my Tahitian cave. Anyway. 

Syria. Five letters, one country and now a myriad of problems. Once a great centre in the entire Middle East; Damascus, centre of learning and culture for Muslims, Christians and Jews. A gateway to Turkey and the Mediterranean, it has stood proud and strong for millennia. Until the Assad regime came. Firstly, the family were good enough not to go off half-cock shooting innocent people and terrorising the populace at large. A dictatorship yes, but largely benevolent and decent in its treatment of the large Christian and Jewish minorities resident in Damascus, Aleppo and elsewhere. That was until the events of the Arab Spring, when the Syrian members of Generation Y took to the streets in the big cities and demanded, as their Tunisian, Egyptian and Yemeni counterparts, greater freedoms and change. Events were quick to escalate and now we've had nothing but two long years of Syrian internal strife, culminating on Wednesday 21st August this year with the first use of chemical weapons this century. I have to say I'm impressed that mankind managed to hold off that long before doing something so stupid or dangerous. 

Now what do we have? A frightened population and 1,429 people whose lungs were filled with toxins and allegations of napalm used at a playground only a couple of days ago. The reaction from much of the world was righteous indignation; who would do such a thing and to so many women and children? A frightened and paranoid despot who will stop at nothing to ensure the re-enslavement of his people. Nations both large and small registered their disgust and anguish at such a diabolical atrocity. The UN sent in weapons inspectors, who are now safely back in New York having completed their investigation and who will report to the Secretary-General. We know they won't lay any blame, but my hope is that the provenance of the weapons used will do that for them. 

So what happened otherwise? Well, the UK tried to get the Security Council to agree to some sort of action plan but Russia as usual proved intractable and China non-committal. Quelle surprise, but surprisingly France is on board for military intervention. Which brings me to the nub of why I've written this. 

In Opposition, David Cameron promised that the UK would only be involved in military action if Parliament deemed it worthy to do so. He promised to consult Parliament every step of the way, in a bid to avoid doing another Blair and riding roughshod over Parliament's absolute sovereign right to keep the executive in check. He was given assurances by Ed Miliband that Labour would support the motion tabled on Thursday night to involve the UK in some form of military action, provided that the UN route had been exhausted, the case was built and Parliament was given two votes. 

285-272. That was the result and the government's motion was defeated. Our hands are now tied and we can only sit idly and watch as the rest of the world, including Australia, France and Turkey back the US in going up against Assad et al. Dan Hodges wrote in his Telegraph blog that he felt so ashamed by the duplicity showed by Miliband that he has now left the Labour Party. I do hope that The Telegraph keep him on, I don't believe he'll renege and join the Tories or even the Lib Dems any time soon. 

Even at time of writing, my Facebook feed is showing me articles from The Political Writer and other sources arguing that Britain shouldn't be following the US into every conflict and even suggesting Obama may not be too eager to wade on in just yet. Putting that aside, I do wonder what went through the minds of those MPs voting "No" on Thursday night. Some will have done so in the hope of being seen as good MPs who were concerned and listening to the voters. Others will have of course been politicking, although I won't be uncharitable and entirely blame the Opposition. 

I know Ed Miliband won't be ashamed of himself in what he's done. He'll doubtlessly think he's done the country and enormous favour that it'll play well in the national memory in 2015 and indeed at his party's conference in a few weeks. Big rubber balls. He's proven that he's totally unworthy of the burdens of the office to which he aspires (or believes should be his because he's entitled to it). I do hope that those Tory MPs who voted against aren't all in the crucial 40/40 seats we're targeting. I know some of them will have wanted to "stick it" to Cameron on some other issue because they just don't like him. I am comforted, however, that now Miliband has soured relations with the Democrats in the US; their memories are long and I know that even if we lose in 2015 and the Republicans win in 2016, the words Prime Minister Miliband will not be met with any great enthusiasm in Washington. 

I do feel sorry for the PM, no good deed goes unpunished and the pundits may be right about his authority being diminished. He's spent so long, along with William Hague, re-building British foreign policy and increasing our standing abroad. Now that all lies in tatters and the Britain that once stood up twice to an over-mighty Germany twice in a century, as well as halting atrocities in Africa and the Balkans not less than twenty years ago is no more. While I applaud that Parliament was able to rightly assert its will, the choice was the wrong one. There may yet be an opportunity to re-frame the question once the weapons inspectors' report is published. For now, I shall simply let my rage subside and grieve quietly for a period in our history which has ended so abruptly. 

Gibraltar

Egad! Another post so soon, hot on the heels of the last? Yes, indeed, but on another theme about which I feel very strongly; British sovereignty. A brief context; much has been made over the past few days of the story concerning Spain's apparently aggravating policies of wanting to instigate border charges at the point of entry from mainland Spain to the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar. The Spanish government wishes to charge each vehicle €50 (£43) to enter and exit the territory. That is a cost of roughly £96 per day to those who have to work there, estimated at 4,000 or so. While that would be a very nice little earner for the blighted Spanish economy, which currently suffers at 25% unemployment, this is an entirely unworkable solution, when considering what else they wish to impose, namely the closure of Spanish airspace to all inbound and outbound flights to Gibraltar. That would be far more damaging to the Spanish economy as a whole. Yet what is the reasoning for this dispute in the first place? Simple: a fishing dispute. The Spanish government claims that the building of a reef by the Gibraltarian is harming the Spanish fishing trade. 

Regardless of whether or not this is true (and I suspect is isn't); the imposition of a fine in contravention to various schedules and sections in all EU treaties to which both Spain and the UK are signatories is a violation. Without wishing to sound too much like a Little Englander or, God forbid, a UKIP candidate (I am not, by the way), why has Brussels chosen to let Spain and the UK fight it out? These are EU member states and as I said, the fines are in contravention of what is ostensibly EU law. The EU would be perfectly within its rights to act as a mediator, yet it chooses to ignore the dispute. I guess part of the reason is that both countries' heads of government have managed to take some of the heat out of the argument by talking directly. 

There are, however, some aspects which still need to be addressed and I shall go wider here. Gibraltar is sovereign UK territory, its last referendum was held in 2002 and the popular will was still to remain British. There may be another plebiscite held this century, but I do believe that the Rock will still have the Union Flag flying above it during the rest of my lifetime. Despite the bilateral phone conversation earlier this week between David Cameron and Mariano Rajoy, the Royal Navy has still seen fit to divert one of its fleet to Gibraltar (we are reminded of Lord Palmerston and his effective 'gunboat diplomacy' during the 1860's). We still maintain a small presence in another small, but no less important, territory and they need no name at all here. They too held a vote and in March this year decided to remain British as well. As has been said in other parts as well this week, it is a clear indication of troubled or failing governments which border a BOT and claim British imperialism if they perceive a slight or wish to cause trouble. President de Kirchner of Argentina said she doesn't recognise the Falklanders' vote this year, cries foul and all sorts of nonsense. These places were British territory recognised by treaties signed before either Rajoy's or de Kirchner's great-grandparents ever drew breath and will be so when their great-grandchildren's death rattle will sound. 

I visited the reception given by HM Government Gibraltar at Conference last year and signed the book at the Falkland Islands stall as well. The quiet dignity of the First Minister of Gibraltar when he spoke (although at length) impressed me greatly and is reflective of those resident in the territory. We should not give in to demands made just because they are made. We are backing Gibraltar and should do so until instructed otherwise. No government has the right to tell us otherwise.