Ukraine, Invasion the EU and UK – Defence and Security Part 3

Having dealt with the (spurious) argument about “proximity” requiring the UK to re-engage with the EU (alleged – no evidence!). Let us look at the facts of existing defence and security. Of the 27 members of the EU, twenty (20) are already members of NATO – a defence and security treaty of over 70 years with the UK as a founding member. Additionally Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria are neutral! So to allege a lack of engagement is close to being preposterous! If there is a wish to replace NATO then this should be made explicit. I could go into a lot more detail but EU behaviour has to be taken into account. Thus far their record has not been error free. Germany’s “ostpolitik” has failed spectacularly. French desire to lead Europe (after de Gaulle) depends on German money – the bus always has to be driven by a French person no matter who pays the bill. The UK has very superior intelligence capabilities which is why the EU wants us to be with them but their way of working would be very difficult for an independent nation state – as many MEP’s have said they are in the process of building an Empire. It will take the EU many years to shed itself of the view that the only way to do things is the EU way. So let us put this away in the filing cabinet under “Another Nonsense Idea”.

The "proximity" argument explored - a comedic

Imagine you are on the London Underground. You sit down and then a person with a strong, noticeable (and unpleasant) body odour sits next to you. You could move to the next available seat but that would only put you one seat away from that smell. The train stops, no one gets off and another person sits next to you in the previously available seat. Horror of horrors! This person also has a very unpleasant smell emanating from them, only this time it has all the indications that the person has had an anal accident of significant proportions! A truly unfortunate and very undesirable example of “proximity”.

On another journey on the Underground you have chosen a seat which has a vacant seat either side of you. The train stops . No one leaves and two people enter the carriage and sit on either side of you. One has a very definite perfume which you enjoy experiencing. The other is dressed in expensive and stylish clothing, smells clean and has a cherubic outward appearance. Neither engages in discussion and both leave two stops later. A much more fortunate and desirable example of “proximity”.

The point is simple, without further clarification “proximity” of itself (as per Paul Mason, Andrew Marr and today David Lammy and John Healey) in relation to UK/EU Defence and Security is close to being meaningless.

Poor Journalism again!

As a subscriber to the New Statesman I have digital access to articles both those printed and those published on the Web site. Last week I came across an article on the Web site by Paul Mason entitled “The Ukraine war has invalidated Brexit”. So I thought I had better take a closer look since “invalidated” usually means not legally acceptable. On closer investigation this, at best, just more Journalistic hyperbole. So I haven't missed a decision of the Supreme Court nor even a unilateral decision of the ECJ. However warming to his hyperbole Mason asserts (i.e. without a shred of evidence) that Brexit in it’s original form is dead and refers especially to “defence, energy and even trade”. Of course the phraseology “in it’s original form” is meant to be pejorative and therefore not related to any prior rigorous analysis, objectivity nor subsequent rational conclusion. I would just ask for the evidence – there is none! - because the events to which Mason refers are only 3 weeks old! To bolster his argument he then goes on to state that the “alliance” between Russia and China (of militarised dictatorships) means that the UK is isolated and therefore geographic proximity matters a great deal now. The UK is supposedly unable to survive without the (s)mothering hands of the EU. In support of this argument he suggests that discussions between the USA and Venezuela (about energy supplies) are an example of what is required (last time I looked the distance between Caracas and Washington was 2059 miles by air!). Not a lot of proximity there! Moreover $60 a barrel is the point at which it becomes profitable to start pumping American shale oil! (currently Brent Crude is $114 {21^st March} per barrel). So the UK must “re-engage” with the EU. Please provide evidence that the UK has dis-engaged and that the EU has not – shall we look at satellites, science and security. Again partiality and lack of objectivity! He (Mason) states that the UK has walked away from 70 years of leadership in Europe. Au contraire the UK has not wanted to lead the EU for many and varied reasons – e.g. Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties (ever closer union) despite promises were never consented to by the electorate; history – two world wars originated on the continent of Europe; Charles Michel (President of the Council of the EU) has openly sought to create an empire out of the EU (with support from Macron). If there was ever a dangerous thought that is it! Throughout the piece there is the conflation of the EU and Europe

which is both geographically and politically incorrect. Additionally it would seem that it is alright to refer to Britain but not the UK. I think it is about time this narrative by this remainer should be confined to the dustbin as it is devoid of meaningful analysis, objectivity and sense! Poor Journalism and even worse reasoning.

I shall come to Marr later!