UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 12

On August 23 2013 05:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Holy. Shit.



Source

How has Labour not called an Emergency session? I mean isn't this how Government's in power fall and elections called?

A spokesman for Clegg said 'if we're going down we're gonna take Cameron with us."

On August 23 2013 07:09 Zaros wrote:


I don't see how it is even a big deal, they let the guardian do there story then a top civil servant came round for a cup of tea and made sure they destroyed stolen data that is apparently a threat to national security.

On August 23 2013 10:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


But how does this not look like Cameron and Co. strong arming the free press.

Britain runs a secret Middle East-based listening post collecting vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies.

The station is able to tap into and extract data from the underwater fibre-optic cables passing through the region.

The information is then processed for intelligence and passed to GCHQ in Cheltenham and shared with the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States. The Government claims the station is a key element in the West’s “war on terror” and provides a vital “early warning” system for potential attacks around the world.

The Independent is not revealing the precise location of the station but information on its activities was contained in the leaked documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden. The Guardian newspaper’s reporting on these documents in recent months has sparked a dispute with the Government, with GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives containing the data.

On August 23 2013 10:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


But how does this not look like Cameron and Co. strong arming the free press.

Any new technology has a short honeymoon period where its attractions loom large before practicalities intervene to burst the bubble and a more realistic picture of its costs and benefits emerges. I should know, I helped to raise expectations about the future of UK wave power in the early 2000s. Our hope that large wave farms would be up and running within the decade proved distinctly optimistic.

But most politicians develop an instinctive reflex against technological optimism, understanding the power of events and uncertainty to change the future. But there has been no such caution from the prime minister over shale gas. The government were already bullish about exploration, but David Cameron has chosen to become the industry's biggest cheerleader. He hasn't asked us to keep an open mind, he's been determined to "win the debate" so that the public "get behind fracking".

It reminds me of Tony Blair's unsuccessful attempt in 1999 to convince the British public to accept GM food, but looking back at his statements they were far more balanced than those Cameron has been making. Blair admitted the "jury was still out" on GM, which remains the case 15 years on. Cameron brokers no doubts and states: "If we don't back this technology, we will miss a massive opportunity to help families with their bills". So that's absolutely categorical then. You can start reducing your energy company direct debit now.

Why would he do this? Zoe Williams, writing in the Guardian last week, suggested that electioneering has led to this fracking evangelism, but will it really win Conservative votes? Its proponents don't expect shale gas to be in production by the election, so there is no prospect of it impacting on energy bills in 2015. The fact that many exploration sites are in Conservative voting shires, and that 30% of the British public are already opposed to fracking suggests that the prime minister will need extraordinary powers of persuasion to make this a vote winner.

So he must be motivated by something greater than electoral calculation. My suspicion is that it's the allure of being responsible for unleashing a disruptive technology with the potential for big economic and political impact. Prime ministers can lose their healthy scepticism after a few years at the top. Weighed down by the inertia of Whitehall, and isolated from real life they become susceptible to "white heat" visions that appeal to the desire to be remembered as successful reformers.

Military action against Syria may be the only remaining response to the suspected large-scale chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime, William Hague said today.

The Foreign Secretary declined to be drawn on the options being considered by Western allies but would not rule out the possibility of air strikes or other measures being taken within days.

And he told MPs demanding the recall of parliament from its summer break ahead of any British involvement in any such intervention that it would "depend on the timing and nature of what we propose to do".

United Nations inspectors are due to visit the area of Damascus where chemical weapons were apparently deployed last week after the regime gave permission and a temporary ceasefire was agreed.

Syrian president Bashar Assad says the claims are "politically motivated" and defy logic as the regime has forces near the area - and warned in a Russian newspaper that any US-led military action would end in failure.

Mr Hague insisted there was "no other plausible explanation" and accused Damascus of delaying the arrival of the UN team to reduce the chances of them finding evidence.

Prime Minister David Cameron was involved in a round of phone calls with fellow leaders including American president Barack Obama over the weekend, who agreed the need to take "strong action".

Downing Street is promising MPs a chance to debate British military involvement in Syria as the Prime Minister considers whether to recall Parliament ahead of a possible missile attack as early as this week.

However, David Cameron could still authorise the use of force without a Commons vote, risking a backlash from MPs from all parties.
More than 50 MPs have signed up to a Parliamentary motion demanding a “full debate” before any British commitment is made to military action against the Assad regime.

Senior Liberal Democrat, Tory and Labour politicians called for a binding Commons vote before any missiles are launched on regime targets inside Syria in retaliation for the suspected chemical weapons attack last week.

Mr Cameron will make a decision on Tuesday on whether to recall Parliament ahead of MPs’ scheduled return to Westminster next week. It will depend on the likely timing and the extent of British involvement in any joint military response with America and other allies.

On August 28 2013 20:37 Eufouria wrote:
I'm really hoping they vote against us going to war. I'm not sure I believe that it was Assad behind the attacks or the shooting at the UN and even so I don't know what we can do in Syria. As hard as it is to say having a cruel dictator might be abetter solution than years of war between all the small factions in Syria, especcially because I think the most likely winner will end up being backed by Al'Qaeda.

It seems like Russia has the most sense when looking at what to do with Syria, everyone else is ignoring the lessons we should have learned from the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the Iraq war.

David Cameron could be heading for a bigger rebellion than expected over military strikes on Syria, as dozens of Tory MPs express their doubts about the move.

High-profile Conservatives, including three former ministers, Cheryl Gillan, Peter Luff and Sir Gerald Howarth, are among those yet to be convinced of the case for action.

The UK prime minister is hoping for the backing of MPs at an emergency debate and vote on Thursday, after he decided Britain needs to act against Syria to deter any further use of chemical weapons.

He would win any vote easily if backed by Labour, but the party has made its support conditional on Cameron's seeking the involvement of the UN and wants to see an initial report made by UN weapons inspectors in the country.

Britain is seeking the backing of the UN but a security council resolution backing military strikes is almost certain to be blocked by Russia, leaving Labour's support for a campaign in Syria unclear.

On Wednesday afternoon, the prime minister obtained the support of his National Security Council, including that of former Iraq war opponent and cabinet minister Ken Clarke, for some sort of action against Syria.

However, about 30 Tory MPs have publicly come out as sceptical about military strikes, putting Cameron under pressure to set out a robust legal basis and military strategy in Thursday's debate.

Gillan, a senior Tory backbencher, said she and many colleagues had "great doubts" and warned intervention could lead to "absolute disaster".

Luff, one of Cameron's defence ministers until last year, also told the Guardian he "remains to be persuaded".

"I am yet to hear a compelling case that military action would be for the best," he said.

Another former defence minister, Sir Gerald Howarth, said he was concerned Britain was at risk of "getting our hand caught in the mangle" of a civil war between Syrian factions.

Mr Cameron recalled Parliament tomorrow with the intention of giving MPs a vote on military action in response to last week's suspected deadly gas attack by the Assad regime.

However, in a phone call at 5.15pm tonight, Mr Miliband told the Prime Minister that Labour could not support British involvement in international missile strikes without more compelling evidence and a clear legal basis to act.

The Opposition leader said he could not allow his MPs to support a government motion which would have paved the way for an expected two-day bombardment of cruise missiles beginning this weekend.

Instead, the United Nations weapons inspectors must be allowed to complete their work analysing evidence from the scene of the suspected chemical attack, and present their findings to the UN Security Council for a vote, Labour said.

Mr Miliband said the Prime Minister must return to the Commons next week to make his case again and allow MPs a second, final vote authorising force.

Britain has sold industrial materials to Syria that could have been used to make chemical weapons, according to a new report by MPs on arms sales.

The Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) said it was just one example of numerous questionable deals between UK contractors and countries the Foreign Office (FCO) deems to have poor human rights records. 　

The CAEC said supplies of sodium fluoride, which could be used to make chemical weapons, were sent to Syria in the last couple of years.

Sodium fluoride is a legitimate component of a number of civilian products including toothpaste, but there is no way of knowing what it was used for in the end.

MPs have fired a warning shot across the Government's bows, questioning the checks made on more than 3,000 export licences worth over £12bn to 27 countries on the FCO's own list of countries of human rights concern.

While the CAEC acknowledged many of the licences were for dual-use (military or civilian) items or other equipment which could not readily be used for "internal repression", the MPs said the numbers were still "surprisingly large".

The biggest chunk of the £12bn comes from Israel, which accounts for £7.8bn.

The Saudis are next, with close to £1.9bn, and China is third, with almost £1.4bn.

The UK also has licences to sell arms to Iran, Egypt and Syria among many others.