Lord Menzies Campbell gave the Lib Dem reaction to Theresa May’s speech on post-Brexit security:
Everything Theresa May said in this speech illustrated that being in the EU is the best way of securing our security objectives.
This was an opportunity for her to show some pragmatism. She could have shown willingness to compromise on the European Court of Justice so as to break the logjam on the European Arrest Warrant and to make sure we have access to Europol’s information.
The problem she has is that to decide is to divide – Conservative Brexiteers inside and outside her Cabinet will be up in arms over any pragmatic concession.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
PODCAST - How to tackle the corrosion of trust in our politics
Shropshire Council meetings have become uncouth - some councillors also
Most Leicester councillors deselected by Labour's NEC are from minority ethnic backgrounds
My tweets
Welsh Labour Government emulate John Redwood
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
George Thomas
Martin Gray
Tristan Ward
Michael BG
William
17 Comments
It depends what you mean by security. The EU didn’t exactly cover itself in glory with its intervention in former Yugoslavia. The EU garrison (I won’t mention from which country) tasked with defending Srebrenica didn’t put up much, if any, resistance. In addition it has dithered on the Ukrainian issue. The EU succeeded in antagonising the Russians for no appreciable gain. If anything it gave the Russians the reason they were looking for to occupy the Crimea.
The British defence minister was asked “How many troops will you provide?” and answered ‘70,000’ (almost the entire British army, at that time). He became secretary general of NATO,
Eight soldiers in blue helmets were tested by a larger number of battle hardened troops. They could and should have called up air power to deter.
Initially the Ukrainian soldiers marched unarmed to talk to their Russian-speaking socialist brothers.
When did the EU start having garrisons?
“May’s speech shows that staying in the EU is best for Britain’s security”
Right, but the referendum result, which politically speaking May HAS to implement, mandated that we leave the EU. So we have to have security arrangements outside the EU. I never thought Lord Campbell was an especially slow learner but something tells me that the penny hasn’t dropped for him…
No Rob Parker, the referendum didn’t mandate anything, however, various influential fringe elements of the Conservative party, being worried about UKIP and wanting to appear to be ‘in touch’ and spoiling for a fight, interpreted the result in a particular way, namely that the UK should leave the EU via the invocation of Article 50 et al.
Having rushed into the invocation of Article 50, they are only now discovering the problems. If they had paused for thought, they would have realised the UK could leave the EU in exactly the same way as it left the EEC and joined the EU and thus satisfy ‘Brexit’. But then that leads us to their second problem, they don’t have a leader with a clear sense of purpose and as strong and determined as Margaret Thatcher…
Otherwise, I would agree with you, Westminster had a political obligation to be seen to act on the referendum. What is notable, there is much the government could achieve in addressing the concerns raised in the referendum whilst remaining in the EU. Given we will be in the EU until at least Mar 2019 and then sort of in the EU whilst we ‘transition’, a key question has to be asked as to why the government hasn’t taken the steps that many, including the EU have pointed out they could take…
There is no political gain from using the security card, it is not a point that is going to change anyone’s mind on remaining or leaving. The govn did not rush into Article 50, BTW, although a good case could have been made for delaying it further so there was alignment with the end of the EU’s fiscal cycle, which should have been mentioned at the time of the referendum. Cameron ended up resigning because he was aware of how hardcore the EU’s reaction was to the referendum although he could have waved his magic wand by introducing a five year residence test before access to benefits, housing, tax credits tax allowance, etc (no EU permission needed if applied to Brits as well) and asked the populace for time to see its effect on immigration, which would have been massive at the lower end, especially if made retrospective and you had immigrant families moved to hostels and rough sleepers suddenly off the street in the vacant social housing.
Roland, the Conservatives are even worse than that. From the date of the Referendum, 23 June 2016 to Theresa May’s invoking Article 50 on 29 March 2017, she had 8 months to investigate the problems – OK perhaps 3 weeks less as up to 13 July she was campaigning for the right to drive the hearse to the graveyard.
The entire Conservative Party is a complete disgrace.
@ Peter Martin
Don’t be shy Peter, Dutchbat was a battalion of 800 troops acting in the traditional way of UN missions supposedly protecting innocents, of doing nothing and running away at the first threat. The UN has a long and ignoble history of running away in their nice shiny blue helments, and of course the other major EU countries apart from the UK were completely absentin force when the atrocities were taking place in the Balkans , and as per usual it was left to the UK and the USA to do the dirty work, and for the others to ride on their tailcoats, ensuring they have the usual scapegoats if things go wrong.
Only 5 of the EU countries including the UK spend 2% of their GDP on defence, and Germany the biggest has now refused point blank to spend that much. Only France and the UK have the ability to fully mobilise outside their own borders.
I wonder how exactly the UK is more secure by spending its money defending other countries that can afford, but choose not to defend themselves.
“The EU garrison (I won’t mention from which country) tasked with defending Srebrenica didn’t put up much, if any, resistance.”
By contrast to the defence of Gorazde which probably has the lowest ration of remembrance to battle awards received of any Uk military action since WWII. Had they not been there there is little doubt that today we would talk of the Gorazde genocide rather than Srebrenica.
@ Martin
“When did the EU start having garrisons?”
That’s rather the point. If we, or any other EU country, are going to start relying on the EU for security they are going to have to get themselves organised. They completely failed on the Bosnian intervention. Probably the Dutch garrison had no choice but to leave when they did because they were getting anywhere near the level of support they needed to prevent the massacre that occurred.
The EU as a whole ended looking quite inept after that.
Peter Martin:
Comments such as that only mark you out as an oddball commentator. Military involvement was under the UN and NATO, the EU or EC had no military involvement.
As yet the EU has not developed a system for coordinating military cooperation amongst its member states. Even if it did, it would not have an army, just a process for rationalising defence capability and deployment.
@ Martin
Your comment contradicts that of Menzies Campbell, who clearly thinks our membership is best for Britain’s security. Yet in real warfighting scenarios in Europe and further afield, show time and time again that the EU is not just militarily impotent, but is also politically impotent. it was down to NATO who had no remit in the Balkans in the unilateral decisions of nation states such as the UK and the USA to intervene, whilst all the other EU countries sat on their thumbs. How exactly will that be any better when they do have a military, when most countries including Germany, lack the will to stand up and be counted.
Ming is clearly refers to:
“Everything Theresa May said in this speech illustrated that being in the EU is the best way of securing our security objectives.
That would be international crime, counter-terrorism and the like. Perhaps May was also thinking about coordinating responses to Russia and possibly elsewhere, but it was all about internal security.
As for everything to do with the EU May wants to be both in and out. The trouble is she cannot stop others from noticing, so her wave function collapses.
@ Martin,
If the EU wants to be a viable entity, then it needs a common Govt, and an EU set of armed forces etc.
I don’t know if that’s an “oddball” view, if so then people like Emmanuel Macron are oddballs too.
But, do we want to be apart of it all? That’s what we need to ask ourselves?
Peter Martin:
Il ne faut pas fabuler. Je n’ai jamais entendu Emmanuel Macron dire quoi que soit de ce genre.
Martin,
I’m not sure what you’ve heard but Emmanuel Macron’s thoughts are recorded in print. He’s known as an integrationist and a Federalist. He’s said that “the Euro will fail in 10 years without reform”. The reform he has in mind is a “eurozone budget”. There has to be a EZ govt to be in control of that budget. Unless the EZ govt turns out just to be about unique in the world, the usual accessories of govt like armed forces etc will quickly follow. EM has clearly said that is what he has in mind.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/emmanuel-emmanuel-macron-eu-army-joint-defence-budget-french-president-nato-britain-brexit-russia-a7968346.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/11/euro-will-fail-in-10-years-without-reform-emmanuel-macron