There is much that pro Europeans can support in this. I believe that the inserts in para v,vi and vii are correct. Above all, the statement against our dependence on the United States is more forthright (and right) than my colleagues and I finally settled upon, in order to encourage some realism from our defence team. Having seen the company they seem prepared to keep in the columns of The Independent the other day, I rather wonder whether such deference is deserved.
However, I do not agree that we would be better spending money on conventional forces. What history since the mid eighties has demonstrated, I would submit, is the efficacy of nuclear deterrence, and the inefficacy of conventional war making. With the possible exception of our assault on Serbia over Kosovo (the last Act of which, of course, has yet to be played out) it is difficult to point to a single instance where the possession of a greater conventional capability would have served the national interest. Intelligence, both electronic and human, yes, paramilitary police style capability yes, humanitarian and emergency aid capability yes, but not more tanks, aircraft carriers, strike fighters or whatever which cost the real money. Indeed it has been the illusions such capabilities have fostered that have contributed greatly to the crass policy errors that have been made in the Middle East.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Senior Reform official cast doubt over legality of huge donations
Turning Point UK chief executive suspended by Tories over contract killing claims
Peter Davies 
Peter Wrigley 
James Hill 