Time To End The 'Special Relationship'

It took a report by the "Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee" to conclude what we all knew already. That for Britain it's more a "special friendship", where one partner gets to see other people, have no commitment and yet call up for a bootie call. It's amazing it took a committee to conclude that.

What made the "Special Relationship" work was Britain's relationship with the rest of the world and the rest of the world's belief that Britain would council America not to do stupid things. Blair destroyed that position giving support to Bush, he made Britain a lap dog in the eye's of the world. In doing that he undermined what made the "Special Relationship" work. He made it just a term that people snigger at.

At least we won't hopefully have to hear all about the "Special Relationship" any more, while watching MPs falling over themselves, grinning like a manic and repeating creepily the declaration that they're special, so very special, over and over again like Gollum without a comb over.

Airport Scanner - Coming Soon

Who said this?

I think we all know what they are trying to do. They are trying to use the slaughter of innocent people to cow us, to frighten us out of doing the things that we want to do, trying to stop us from going about our business as normal, as we are entitled to do and they should not and they must not succeed.

When they try to intimidate us, we will not be intimidated. When they seek to change our country or our way of life by these methods, we will not be changed.

No not the words of a crazy blogger about the Labour Party, they are in fact Tony Blair's words after the terrorist attacks on London. As I now read about the full-body scanners that will be installed in airports, yet another terrorist necessity, I'll bear in mind those words as I head to the airport for my nude photo shoot. Because of course the only real choice here is between being groped or being stripped? Yet should people really be humiliated by their government like this? And for how much extra security, really?

Iraq Inquiry Starts Tomorrow

Sir John Chilcot kicks off the non judgemental inquiry from tomorrow, in order to identify lessons that can be learnt from Iraq. Of course we wouldn't want to pass judgement on anyone, as that would mean taking responsibility for actions and events.

There is one upside to this is with no position of power to protect him and Labour facing the losing the election next year, Blair has reason to feel a little nervous. The Tories could shift the goal posts, if public opinion strongly shifts against Blair and New Labour in light of what will be disclosed.

It's the hope I hold on to at least. As someone who strongly believes in the rule of law, the fundamental principle that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. There little more distasteful to me than seeing Bush and Blair prance about on the world stage while blood covers their hands. They made a mockery of parliament, they made a mockery of democracy. That's before you even consider the human cost and how on earth can that be measured.

Lest we forget.

The Lisbon Treaty - What Now?

Following on from by betting post, the Irish have voted "yes" to the Lisbon Treaty, I bet on a "no" vote. My Mum always said to be humble in defeat, humble is not quite what I'm feeling right now after loosing money. Yet what's important is what happens now for Europe, what the treaty means for Britain and the EU. In the interests of disclosure, I'm not anti EU but pro EU with reform, I don't feel the Lisbon Treaty as it stands reforms the EU, it's just another layer of complicated legislation and management.

Ireland now having ratified the treaty means there's only two countries left to do so, Czech Republic and Poland, they are expected to say yes and ratify by December. The purpose of the Lisbon Treaty is to replace previous treaties and streamline EU institutions. It does this by creating an European Commission, which will have an EU president, named by the EU governments and an EU foreign minister will take office along side the president*. This is where is starts to particularly effect Britain.

The name of the person thought to be the EU president in waiting is, Tony Blair. It's difficult to know if the British media are scaremongering or if he's really in the running, as opinion of him is hard to gauge across Europe. Some people though would argue that this good for British interest in the EU, I however would argue that Blair has never been good for British interest, anywhere.

It also has a national effect in that the Tories policy was to offer a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, if it's not in force by the election, it's unlikely referendum will be forthcoming under the circumstances. For David Cameron though this could become a much bigger issue, Euro-scepticism is a really divisive issue within the Tory party and among it's supporters. He has to keep the kettle from boiling over, the referendum was a good way to achieve that. Thus he may have trouble ahead.

For Europe at large the Lisbon treaty expands the EU's justice and police decisions it also creates a rights charter for things such as freedom of speech, religion etc, both of these Britain has opted out of. Which means such legislation will not have a direct effect, though in reality given how interlinked each country is, it's bound to have an indirect effect.

Consequently the Lisbon treaty will mainly in Britain, entrench peoples views and stir up resentment, it will be a centre point of rage for Euro-sceptics. Something that will have to be addressed at some point, I doubt our current government will be the one to do so though.



* For more details the BBC have a handy Q&A page here.

Gary McKinnon Hacker

Gary McKinnon lost his latest High Court appeal, it seems likely now that he will be extradited to the United States. Clearly what he did was wrong and he shouldn't be exempt from the law. Yet that should be proportionate, he is not a terrorist, he is the sort of guy that would stand outside of area 51 with tin foil on his head, while holding a sign saying "the truth is out there".

Why make an example of such a person? I would like to think that after a change of administration that the hysteria over terrorists would have calmed down. This is a good opportunity for Obama to show that. For our government it's also a good opportunity to address the US-UK extradition treaty's inequality. Tony Blair signed the treaty with the US, yet he would have signed over his Mother to George Bush. It's a product of appeasement, that needs to be redressed in 2009.

Blair for President of Europe?

Baroness Kinnock and the British government are backing Blair for the possible EU presidency. Like every EU leader they're acting like the Lisbon Treaty is already a done deal. I guess you should never let democracy get in the way of ambition.

But is Blair in the running? President Sarkozy was a Blair backer, though Germany have never been keen and they are the leaders that will have the most say. Yet there are other factors at play here, they risk alienating Britain further by supporting him. EU scepticism is already going to be an issue the moment Britain gets a vote on any EU treaty. With the strong possibility of a Euro-sceptic government being elected, they will want to be political in their choice, as it could hamper future treaties.

Blair also carries a lot of baggage, he doesn't have the all clear politically. If he becomes EU President they risk associating and tarnishing the EU with it. He will also be seen as a back door for American involvement in Europe, that has always been a contentious issue. Stirrings of it were seen at the G20 with references to those "Anglo-Saxons" from Sarkozy and Obama being shot down for voicing support for Turkey's EU membership.

Thus I don't think he is in the running for people other than his supporters here in Britain and papers that like to participate in scaremongering. Too many factors have changed since he left office, politically he is a terrible choice and a potential liability.

Gordon's Women

The Labour ladies have turned on Brown again, this time in "Gordon's Women" on radio 4. The programme explores whether or not Gordon has a problem working with women. I don't think it's a solely a female issue, Brown's problem is working with people that criticise him in general. This has increased as he's become more vulnerable, illustrated by his cabinet reshuffle being basically an act of putting up the barricades.

Opinion in the programme was divided, yet it's public opinion that matters. Does the term "window dressing" resonate with female voters? Deborah Matison, who studies public opinion for Gordon Brown didn't seem to think so, she said:

Women voters see him as a strong reliable sort of guy.

I'm not so sure she's really tapping into public opinion there, I think I would be inclined to call her bluff.

Brown to Announce Iraq War Inquiry

At long last Labour are to announce an Iraq war inquiry. It's thought that it will examine the circumstances leading up to joining the US-led invasion in March 2003 and its aftermath. I hope in light of all the torture allegations, it will also focus on Britain's involvement in them, the thought that the government had no idea people were being tortured for 6 years is ridiculous.

An inquiry wasn't going to be announced until August after all British soldiers left Iraq, yet Brown in an attempt to improve relations with rebel backbenchers and those that opposed the Iraq war has bought it forward. The other factor here is by starting it off Labour get some control over it, if the Tories win the election and start an inquiry they have no need not to be completely open and honest. As it won't be them that revelations will be a problem for.

The inquiry itself is expected to be based on the Franks inquiry. This consisted of six senior privy ­councillors who had full access to government papers but who met in secret.

Two things about that are concerning firstly, who will be the six senior privy ­councillors? Secondly if it's to be held in secret, then what's the point? No one wants more secrets and lies from this government. So I hope the announcement expected this week, will reflect the transparency and reform Labour keep banging on about.

Gordon Brown Press Conference

I've been debating what to write about Browns "totally candid" speech. The politest way I can phase my reaction is; shameless, deluded and arrogant. The BBC have the video on-line - for those that haven't seen it yet, have a really low opinion and you'll only be mildly shocked.

He's protecting us from the Tories, he's not walking away, he's getting on with the job, he's listening, he's responsible, his Presbyterian conscience is fully tuned in, he's never thought of calling an election - but he's not arrogant. Reminiscing teary-eyed about words his Minister Father said to him, the son of a manse said:

I remember the words of my father; always be honest, always sort things out if things are wrong and never allow things to fester without taking action.

I could write a whole post just on the hypocrisy of that statement alone. Yet what's his big plan for the future of Britain? He's set up three new ministerial councils - the Democratic Renewal Council, the Domestic Policy Council and an enhanced National Economic Council. Effectively like always, like everything the Labour party does, he's shifted the responsibility to someone else. Like the bunch of box ticking, bureaucratic, undemocratic, fools they are, I'm sure they're come up with some statistics and numbers to justify and convince.

What's really become crystal clear from this saga is that, Brown rules by vindictiveness, lashing out at people as there's only his way, there is only his right and his wrong. The man is so black and white in his out look he's no different to Blair, other than Blair could play the political game and keep a lid on all this rabid backstabbing. Brown is a bloody joke.

David Cameron = Tony Blair + Worry

One positive aspect to come from this expenses saga is letting us see what party leaders are really like by their response. In doing so it has highlighted for me just how much of a Blair streak Cameron has and that worries me. As there is so much politics at play here and Cameron really does have the talent of making the best of a situation, as hasn't this expenses saga really become his clause 4 moment?

It seems very likely that unless Nick Clegg can really position himself as more of a challenge, Cameron is a Prime Minster in waiting. He will inherit an incredible amount of power New Labour have built up for the state and police to exercise. That makes it so important that he's not a Tony Blair and why I'm not just going to jump on the Cameron is our saviour band wagon.

As I watched Cameron's speech with the so carefully chosen words and actions, while humming "things can only get better" to myself. I pondered his radical plans announced which "give power to the powerless". They do have some good points I don't discredit that, though what I find the most radical, is that we're meant to trust that once in power he'll give power back to us, he's assuming that people have trust left to give.

In some respects Cameron has got the mood right, what he hasn't got right is he's exploiting it, turning reform into an party political issue like this muddies the water and puts pressure on to reforming quickly. Yet it shouldn't be rushed nor should parties leaders be the only ones to have a say, particularly if the tag line is rebalancing power.

What's more important right now and the one thing I see little action on is getting the house in order. This expenses mess needs sorting out swiftly and decisively. Public anger will subside to non lynching levels if MPs were being held to account. After sorting out this chaos in parliament can we move on to the detail, but the public will not get the best deal reforming in this climate.

EU Franco-German Warning to Cameron

It's comments like this from the Franco-German leaders that really harm the EU, Chancellor Merkel said, with regard to withdrawing support from the Conservatives:

France and Germany are the engine of Europe. We refuse to stretch out our hand to those who oppose the Lisbon Treaty but who at the same time talk about enlargement, those who want more have to cooperate. (read article)

It's a shame democracy is so burdensome to them. Given that Britain did not get a chance to vote on the EU in it's present form. I don't take an Eurosceptic position on the EU, though I do want a chance to have a vote on the EUs change in role. It is not democratic to do otherwise.

Rather than the Franco-German leaders complaining about other countries positions, they should look towards getting the basics in the EU working first. Starting with corruption and expenses, then addressing the issue of whether all countries are equal or if some are more equal than others, as their warnings suggest. The EU can not work like that, such a position will just feed Euroscepticism.

Not to mention they really should be more concerned with creating a President of Europe position, with Tony Blairs name in the running.

Torture Parliamentary Committee

Craig Murray* has given evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. He's enforced what we already know, the UK government regularly received intelligence obtained by torture. Both Murray and Philippe Sands who spoke said, the time of which Britain knew about torture is at the heart of whether they were complicit, also brought into question is whether Britain out sourced torture. Murray's statement echoes the information being released in America, disagreement on policy was repressed, and he felt there was "an appetite for false information".

An interesting article by Frank Rich joins the dots of the torture time line, to focus on the British side though. A piece of information to put in context now, is the July 2002 Downing Street Memo, worth noting that July 2002 is the earliest time we know that torture started in America, and "C" is an agent that's briefing Tony Blair:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The Committee are questioning if there should be a bigger investigation, I think it's clear from just what's in the public domain, it's not a case of "if", but there should be an investigation. There were many lies taking place, and we have a right to know what the truth is.

*H/T Blairwatch

Obama Torture Memos Tony Blair

Obama releasing the CIA torture memos has been like lighting a fuse. The information being released is staggering in it's implications, torture by the Bush administration had generally been dismissed as "a few bad apples", yet the information now shows the Bush officials set-up "interrogation methods" as early as July 2002. Which is before the memos that reviewed and created their legal frame work. That approval has been linked to Condoleezza Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld, with a lot of talk of prosecuting how far will they go?

What makes the information particularly relevant is, they created a torture programme from the start. Worst still the torture that started before invading Iraq was being used to get an Iraq - al Qaeda link. They didn't just lie to invade Iraq, but they used torture to enforce that lie, then lied about the torture. They even prosecuted people for what happen at Abu Ghraib prison, when they authorised the abuse, knowing the "few bad apples" were them.

What about the effect here in Britain, can our government really keep saying they just didn't get the memo or not know anything for over 7 years? The memos being released has had it's first effect, Guantánamo torture evidence that was suppressed is being bought into question for release. Secondly the 7 men who were at Guantánamo bay in their case have accused 17 members of MI5 and MI6 of 'collusion in torture, unlawful rendition and unlawful detention'. Their cases are certainly stronger off the back of this.

Yet should the agents be prosecuted? They're accountable to the government, not us. So why isn't the government's investigation pressing ahead to address this, rather than former prisoners and us having to use the courts to get answers, and how far can we go with prosecution? As who were the MI5 and MI6 agents asking the questions for, who moved them to countries that out source torture, and who else needed a reason to invaded Iraq. Tony Blair himself said in his "give war a chance" speech:

I still believe that those who oppress and brutalise their citizens are better put out of power than kept in it.

It is not for our politicians to pick and choose who should get human rights, that's what laws are for, nor is it right for our politicians not to be subject law themselves. Particularly since their actions can not be justified as a consequence of war, they didn't act under fire, they acted in a clear and premeditated way.

Blair Religion and Politics

There are many articles about Blair faith at the moment, and through the slightly creepy declarations of love for all. I came across a comment he jokingly made at the launch of his new inter-faith foundation course:

I think I kind of got my whole life the wrong way round. I should have started with the conceptual debate first and then gone on to the practice.

I think that's the most truthful thing to have ever escaped from Blair's mouth. Shame it's taken 12 years to realise spin and empty words, don't equate to good policy, policy, policy. *

* sorry I couldn't resit!