The situation is serious

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

The situation is serious

One truly wonders whether Bob Ainsworth is aware of the cynicism with which his statement is greeted in informed circles when he blithely tells us that conditions are improving in Afghanistan, based on the "message" he got "in Afghanistan when I visited last week".

One recalls the then newly appointed defence secretary Des Bowne visiting Basra on 18 May 2006, when he declared, "Basra is calm and British forces are working hand in hand with their Iraqi and coalition partners. Suggestions that the city is, in someway, out of control are ridiculous." Two weeks later, Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki announced a state of emergency in Basra, in a bit to contain the escalating violence.

Recalling also Stephen Grey's evidence to the Commons Defence Committeelast week, one thus simply speculates how long the "lines-to-take book" was this time. The new defence secretary will have been told what he wanted to hear, and shown that which was convenient to show him, upon which basis he delivers the "upbeat" message that he was always going to deliver anyway – whether he had been to Afghanistan or not.

So taken with Grey's evidence was Jim Greenhalf that he was moved to write his own post on it, observing that much of what was said was worthy of the front page of The Sunday Times.

Anyhow, Ainsworth has delivered his own message to Chatham House today in a keynote speech which was delivered shortly after death of another soldier had been announced, the seventh in a week and the 176th to die since the start of operations in Afghanistan in 2001.

His response to those casualties is charted by The Daily Telegraph which tells us, "More British soldiers will be killed in Afghanistan and there is no end in sight to the campaign, Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary has warned." He adds, "Let us be under no illusion. The situation in Afghanistan is serious - and not yet decided. The way forward is hard and dangerous. More lives will be lost and our resolve will be tested."

So much of the rest of the speech is the usual FCO/MoD extruded verbal material that the only rational thing to do is to glide softly by, although there is some merit in comparing the defence secretary's views with the critique by Matt Waldman, who has some sensible and realistic things to say but, in other ways, is part of the problem.

Of special interest to this blog, however, is Ainsworth's frontal assault on the media criticism of the Viking and other poorly protected vehicles in theatre. "Every effort is being made to increase protection - such as the introduction of Mastiff and Ridgeback troop carriers, the improved armour on Viking and Jackal vehicles, and the more heavily armoured Warthog vehicles coming in 2010," he says, continuing with the "line-to-take" supplied by the military:

With this suite of vehicles military commanders will deploy their assets according to the tactical situation on the ground. But as we develop measures to counter a threat like IEDs, so our enemies adapt - for instance by building higher yield bombs to overcome heavier armour. So let us be clear, sacrificing manoeuvre for heavy armour in every circumstance is not the answer.

We are doing everything we can to counter the IED threat at source. Our forces are finding and diffusing these bombs. But tellingly, they are also concentrating on the networks and the people building them and supplying the technology, the parts and the know-how.

We are getting inside the production process - some in the military call this approach 'getting left of the bang'. When we target the bomb makers and take out the capacity to produce, we cut the threat. Getting left of the bang will save lives - of our troops - and of the Afghans themselves.

This is part of a sustained counter-offensive which has also seen a formalattempt at rebuttal by the Ministry of Defeat, which once again falsely frames the debate as one between protection and mobility, as favoured bythe BBC. This is not a ministry that its prepared to learn lessons. Rather it is one that will invest its resources in supporting its existing decisions, however wrong they might be, for want of acknowledging any error whatsoever.

Similarly, Ainsworth is not prepared to admit that which Waldman accuses the government – of miss-spending or wasting aid – not that he could since that involves attacking the FCO and DFID (which we must now learn to call UKAID). Instead, he cites the UK's non-military aid, amounting to £740m since 2001, with a further £500m is planned to 2013. We wonder whether he is aware of the Ferris wheel so generously provided by the British taxpayer, and how that fits in with this general scheme.

What immediately strikes one, however, is the disparity of spending on the military, with over £3 billion in the last three years and £3.5 billion forecast for this current financial year. If the military effort was directed towards civil aid, one might see a wholly different situation in Afghanistan than we see today.

It is rather odd, therefore, that Ainsworth concludes his speech by warning "us" to be under no illusion. "The situation in Afghanistan is serious ... " he repeats. One is tempted to ask: who is this "us", white man? The illusion rests with the secretary of state ... whose policy is not dissimilar to this bridge in the region, which has yet to have the attention of western aid officials. But then, Ferris wheels are so much more useful.

COMMENT THREAD

Looks like October 2

Brian Cowen, the Taoiseach has told the Dáil that the second Irish referendum will take place on October 2. Propaganda, masquerading as misleading information has already begun or, rather, it never stopped.

RTÉ News informs us that

The campaign was marked by a complex No campaign which raised some issues that did not form part of the Treaty.

Following that vote, the Government put in train an analysis of the reasons the document was voted down.

Arising from that research, pressure was put on the other EU members to accommodate Irish voters' concerns, in order to allow for a second vote with a better chance of success.

A two-day EU summit last month agreed to legally binding guarantees on the application of the Treaty in Ireland.

I'd say every single one of those statements is economical with the truth, especially that notion of legally binding guarantees. Even officially they do not become legally binding until the next treaty, whenever that might happen.

The BBC, not to be outdone in the economical with the truth stakes, also tells us about those guarantees, adding for good measure that the Lisbon Treaty was "aimed at streamlining EU institutions". I suppose abolition of parliamentary democracy does streamline institutions.

If the Irish vote no, presumably the colleagues will go through another exercise of having a dialogue with the people, possibly led by someone other than the Fluffy Commissar. Then they will have another IGC (or two or three, on past showing) and come up with another treaty. This time they might not let the Irish vote on it either.

If the Irish vote yes then it is up to President Klaus to hold his pen firmly above the paper and not sign the treaty. (There is also the question of what kind of legislation will be required in Germany.) If the Conservatives are serious about their opposition to the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty (stop sniggering at the back), they will follow our advice and ask President Klaus to hold that pen aloft, in order to give Britain a chance to vote in that referendum that will surely happen under a Conservative government.

At the heart of the evil

Offered by Watts up with that, this telling passage:

The problem with climate prediction and projections going out to 2030 and 2050 is that we don't anticipate that they can be tested in the way you can test a weather forecast. It takes about 20 years to evaluate because there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can’t predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically. That is something that we can't really get a handle on.

The problem though is that climate "predictions" derived from computer models are not so much predictions as mechanisms of control – a means by which pre-existing agendas, such as global governance, can be realised.

"Climate change" is not a matter of science – it is one hundred percent politics, dressed up as science. Which is why, of course, the politicians (in the UK and elsewhere) do not want to talk about it.

Meanwhile, Andrew Alexander in The Daily Mail offers his own "take" on the issue, referring to the "warmists' semi-religious fervour," likening them to "medieval preachers, proclaiming to baying crowds that the end of the word is nigh." Hysteria is the real threat, not global warming, he says.

As we sit here in unseasonable cold weather, succumbing to the temptation to switch the central heating back on, we reflect that this is only "weather" and the cooling trend must be a figment of our imagination. 

But we are slightly cheered by the difficulty being experienced
by G8 leaders at their summit today in central Italy. Hoping to stitch up a deal which can be presented triumphantly to the Copenhagen climate fest at the end of the year, they are also having to deal with the realities of a recession and the massive cost of climate "control" measures, which are set to drive us back into the economic dark ages.

Representatives from China and India, we are told, are creating the blockage, refusing to agree to a draft statement agreeing that global temperatures should not be permitted to rise more than 2°C. Given that the global average is actually declining, that should not present a problem but, such is the fantasy world in which our politicians live, that the idea that mankind can control the climate still holds sway in their feeble brains.

Then, however, they are only the front men. Behind the scenes, as always, there are darker forces at play, and they will have their way. It is getting warmer ... that is what you have been told. You shall believe it!

COMMENT THREAD

That's something, I suppose

In response to Lord Stoddart's written question about the euro and a possible referendum, HMG said:

The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains unchanged. As stated by the previous Chancellor in October 1997, “whenever this issue arises, under this Government there will be a referendum. Government, Parliament and the people must all agree”.

Not sure what those last four words mean. The people are unlikely all to agree. So, if there is merely a sizeable majority, will there be another referendum in order to achieve a unanimity? And what happens if HMG decides that the euro is a very different euro from the original?

Me no understand

Ambrose has an alarming (or alarmist) story in The Daily Telegraph today telling us that the EU is "considering a voting structure for its new apparatus of financial regulation that would make it almost impossible for Britain to block measures, even if they pose a major threat to the City of London." 

We are thus told that the commission is mulling a simple majority system (SMV), making it far harder for the UK to mount a "blocking minority" with like-minded allies. Malta or Slovenia would have the same voting weight on financial regulation as Britain, the world's banking capital. 

On the face of it, this does not seem possible, as voting procedures are defined in the treaty and cannot be changed willy-nilly by the commission, or anyone else. But it is not at all clear from the story as to the context in which this system is supposed to apply.

However, Ambrose tells me that the commission hopes to use the procedures within the technical committees for the three new regulatory authorities, which of course is a devious piece of Monnet salami tactics. The regulators, therefore, will be able to impose their rule over the heads of the British government – if this procedure is approved.

In fact, says Ambrose, it makes little difference whether it is QMV or SMV. The key moment was when the member states agreed to binding EU powers at the Ecofin meeting in May and then at the June summit. That entailed the transfer of ultimate control over the City from London to Brussels. The rest is detail. 

That, in many ways, defines the EU – submerged in technical detail and complexity which lacks clarity and defies understanding. However, we are also told that, "The City is very seriously concerned about this," which is no bad thing. If the money men are seriously worried about the depredations of the EU, then we might see some increased resistance to the evil empire and more pressure on the Conservative Party.

On this, though, it would be unwise to rely. City financiers, in our experience, tend to be extraordinarily naïve when it comes to dealing with the EU, believing they are dealing with a rational organisation with which it is possible to have sensible negotiations. They will learn in time, but not before the City has largely been destroyed by a welter of regulation and procedures that no one understands and which are too complex to report in a popular newspaper.

Any which way though, even if it is not this issue in particular which does the damage, the one constant is that we are going to get shafted, with the City shackled by a ball and chain of perverse regulation. When it happens, we will probably not even realise how it is has been done. A thought thus occurs that between the Taleban and the EU as enemies, the former are possibly preferable. At least we can shoot the Taleban.