Latest from UKIP Daily

SOS – Save Our Services. Part Two

[Ed: this is Part Two of the transcript of the speech given by Henry Bolton at the launch of UKIP’s Campaign ‘Save our Services’. Part One, touching on PESCO and Border security, was published here in UKIP Daily yesterday.]

The EU’s ‘Permanent Security Cooperation’ (PESCO)

The EU treaties contain clear ambitions for EU defence integration and centralised command and control. These ambitions are now being openly pursued. Just because Jean Claude Juncker’s parents didn’t buy him a train set as a child, does not mean we should give him one to play with now!

Let’s be quite clear:

The EU’s Common Security & Defence plans are associated with the eventual formation of a European Federal State. Any involvement in the EU’s ‘Permanent Security Cooperation (PESCO) would place the UK at significant risk of compromising the integrity and capabilities of the British Armed Forces and of subordinating them to EU authority. In particular, the EU’s integration ambitions:

  • Are a threat to the UK’s status as the only European member of the Five Eyes intelligence community;
  • A threat to NATO cohesion (duplication, divided assets, political competition);
  • Interference with the way national Armed Forces are administered, for example seeking the wider introduction of trade unions;
  • A significantly negative impact on the UK defence industry and procurement. For example: in future Britain may have no choice but to have its warships and tanks built in another EU country;
  • Decisions on UK defence priorities being made by the EU.

Let me dwell a moment on greater EU military integration being a threat to NATO and why that is so important.

The propaganda pumped out by Brussels is entirely misleading and delusional. The European Union is not the reason we’ve had peace in Europe for the past 72 years. NATO and the fact that the member states of that alliance have, until recently, maintained formidable military capabilities is the reason we’ve avoided major conflict.

I served in Germany as a tank soldier and served on the staff of Headquarters 1st British Corps in Germany in the 1980s, during the Cold War. There is no question: it was NATO that was then, and that remains, the military alliance that deterred external aggression and prevented war in Europe. The EU was nowhere to be seen in that context. I find it absolutely staggering that EU officials now claim that it was the EU that kept the peace.

The only reason that EU officials are able to spread their propaganda is that nobody under the age of around 40 or so has any recollection of the Cold War. The likes of Jean-Claude Juncker are exploiting that.

Indeed, it could be argued that the EU, through its ineptitude, has exacerbated, if not created, many of the drivers of conflict, including that in Ukraine.

Countries that are members of the NATO alliance and of the European Union will inevitably pledge assets to PESCO. Indeed that’s the whole point of PESCO. Yet they will not increase resources. The inevitable result will be that resources are split between NATO and EU commitments. Not only that, but the EU will have a significant degree of political and regulatory control over EU Member States’ defence and industrial policy. The inevitable result of that is that EU Member States will all have to agree in some way on any support to NATO, making the entire construct slow when, if conflict or crisis threatens, a timely and decisive response will be crucial.

I have no doubt that many of you will be saying “Ok, but why’s he going on about this when the UK did not sign up to PESCO when it could have done on Monday [Nov 13th] – isn’t it now academic?”

No it is not.

The risk of the government selling our Armed Forces down the river, of British military personnel being deployed under EU political control and of the UK having to apply ever more draconian EU Commission regulations on procurement are as real as they were before Monday.

I return to my earlier point. The EU treaties contain clear ambitions for EU defence integration and centralised command and control. These ambitions are now being openly pursued. The UK government has stated clearly that further integration with European Security & Defence structures is on the cards. Theresa May has stated that the UK is offering to subordinate elements of its military and foreign policies to those of the EU and to dedicate part of our Foreign Aid budget – which of course should be cut – to the EU.  In addition, the Government Paper on this topic  released in September this year, says, at paragraph 75:

“As part of the deep and special partnership, the UK wants to explore how best to ensure that the UK and European defence and security industries can continue to work together to deliver the capabilities that we need to counter the shared threats we face, and promote our mutual prosperity. This could include future UK collaboration in European Defence Agency projects and initiatives. We could also consider options and models for participation in the Commission’s European Defence Fund including both the European Defence Research Programme and the European Defence Industrial Development Programme. Our future partnership would mean European capabilities could be developed in support of our joint security and shared values, with the UK’s research and development expertise, and its world-leading facilities, such as the UK Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, used to support shared objectives.”

Despite the subtlety of this wording, the recently-created structures mentioned all involve UK authority to be delegated to the collective decision-making processes of EU + Norway.

The question is: does the British public want its Armed Forces and defence industry to be regulated and politically controlled, our soldiers, sailors and airmen sent into harm’s way by people they cannot even vote out of power? Or do they want the British government and Parliament to have the unfettered authority to make such decisions?

UKIP believes it’s the latter.

UKIP is fighting and will continue to fight to ensure that the government does not allow our Armed Forces, the Defence Budget, cutting edge military science, research and industry to become institutionally entangled with the EU’s dangerous ambitions. To do so would be to compromise our own ability to defend ourselves. To do so would be to compromise our national ability to ensure that this country is confident, prosperous and secure in the years beyond BREXIT.

That said, UKIP supports cooperation with friends and allies, but we are determined that the UK must never lose independent and sovereign control over its defence policy, military procurement or the use of our armed forces.  

Let me be unambiguously clear:

UKIP opposes any subordination to EU policies in the area of Defence and Security.

UKIP will oppose any threat to the cohesion, unity and capabilities of NATO as a result of any EU effort to develop its own military defence capabilities.

UKIP will however actively seek cooperation with all its friends and allies.

Policing and Borders

The aim of UKIP is to ensure that we are secure at home, at our borders and abroad.

The police are obviously the primary agency, being primarily responsible for our security at home. Yet, in addition to compromising our armed forces, the Conservative government has presided over swingeing cuts to our police.

The government has persistently argued that cuts to policing do not affect the front line, yet we have seen a rapid and concerning increase in recorded crime across most areas. With the gradual demise of specialist road traffic units, deaths and serious injuries on our roads are also on the up. The cuts have also not yet ended. The Met Police for example, despite the heightened threat from Jihadi and other extremist terrorism, is having to find a further £400m in savings.

There is no question: Conservative government policies are compromising the enforcement of the rule of law and we are all despite the outstanding efforts of our police officers and staff across the country, inevitably less secure.

UKIP would put an immediate stop to police – and indeed fire service – cuts and would gradually reverse them. Our aim would be to recruit and train a further 20,000 police officers.

On Borders

The Border Force Budget has also been massively reduced:

2012/13 £617m

2016/17 £558m

A reduction of £69m in four years!

Mrs May, when asked in the House of Commons about recently Border Force cuts said:

“I reassure my hon. Friend that we are maintaining the capabilities he talked about, but we are delivering them in a different way. He and I have discussed a particular contract that is no longer in place. What Border Force has done is look to see how it can work in a variety of ways to provide that capability, including, obviously, by working with the Royal Navy.”

This would be the same Royal Navy that cannot put some of its major units to sea for want of sailors and supplies, Mrs May?

The Select Committee report on Borders, released today [Nov 16th], makes it very clear that the government has simply been keeping its fingers crossed regarding the BREXIT related impact on our Borders. It makes plain that, if the government does not immediately commence planning and preparation, we risk chaos on our borders. The danger of BREXIT in this area, as in so many others, does not rest in leaving the EU itself, it rests in the government neglecting its duty to plan and prepare.

I have myself long called for a fully funded and comprehensive air, land and sea national Border Strategy. The UK does not have one – even Albania has one!

That is UKIP’s policy. UKIP would also immediately reverse cuts to the Border Force and I call on Phillip Hammond in his budget presentation to do exactly that. UKIP would also immediately commence the recruitment of a further 4,00 Border Force staff.

Conclusion

In this speech I have referred to a UKIP government. For many this may appear a lofty ambition. However, it is only by presenting practical and achievable solutions to real challenges, by presenting credible policies, that we will achieve the influence to make them happen. And that is what I have done today.

UKIP is the only party that is 100% supportive of our Armed and emergency services. The only party that is pledging to reverse the real cuts to our military, police and Border Force – the only party pledging to look after our veterans.

We are the only party that is 100% committed to preventing the subordination of our Defence Policy to the EU in any way.

UKIP today pledges to save our services and to protect our protectors, through BREXIT and  beyond

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Henry Bolton OBE (5 Articles)
Henry Bolton OBE is the Leader of UKIP

14 Comments on SOS – Save Our Services. Part Two

  1. This is excellent, better than I could ever have imagined. He has put all the relevant points forward that I’ve been banging on about all over the internet and more. I take back any reservations I had in him. A bit last minute.com though. He could have been standing at the podium with the deal signed on Monday. We were lucky that The Tories bottled it.

    One other thing Henry should wave the TREASON word around a bit. It is treason to hand over sovereignty of the Armed Forces to a foreign power. I don’t know about anyone else, I was getting ready to report Boris for treason under, the Treason Act 1351 and I would have been afer May and the entire Cabinet to have their collar felt too.

    The forces swear an oath to Her Majesty as supreme governor, and for them to swear an oath to serve any other body, would be to “imagine the death of the monarch” which is Treason contrary to the Treason Act 1351.
    Therefore to vote in favour of this merger removing the Armed Forces from Her Majesty and Her People, would be an act of high treason by any MP or Lord who votes for it.

    • If Charles ascends to thrown and changes to ‘defender of faiths’ then we will have a real act of treason. This would create a big opportunity for UKIP. UKIP should start campaigning on this now, nobody else dares talk about it.

  2. The same media that were so keen to mock HB with the fake news of his badger-strangling boast that wasn’t, haven’t even mentioned this speech. In fact, so far as I can see, not a single news organisation did, let alone quote any or all of it.

    I would have though almost every point he made is on the Daily Mail’s editorial tick box list, yet anyone who dares to threaten or out-do their current object of worship, pop idol (or should that be idle), Appeaser Theresa, get’s viciously smeared (Leadsom, Johnson, Gove) or simply ignored. And they have the cheek to lecture others on hypocrisy.

  3. In a game of two halves, Henry`s second half is bang on the nail.
    I`m almost ready to forgive him for the AMW affair, I couldn`t see her ( or anybody else) speaking so authoritatively on what actually is the first duty of government and in which our present government is so signally failing.
    This aspect of defence is part and parcel of the Brexit agreement – so yes Henry it does come first.

    By the way, I thought your description of EU mishandling of the Ukraine issue was “ineptitude” was letting them off the hook a bit – as with degree one murder, I thought there was a strong dose of “malice a forethought” or deliberate interference if you like (probably at the behest of the Yanks)

    • Actually the US and the EU were at loggerheads over their destablisation of Ukraine, if you google ‘Victoria Nuland F*** the EU’ you will get the recordings of her phone calls (she was US asst secretary of state for europe then) where she utters the wonderful line ‘F*** the EU’ which I am sure we would all heartily agree with

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o

      • It was difficult to understand the role of Baroness (Catherine) Ashton of Upholland, High Representative of the (European) Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy carried out with the Ukraine. A post created by the treaty of Lisbon ? which The Baroness possibly also had a hand in.

        As an irrelevant side comment, from memory alone there appeared to be negligible fuss made during the signing up to the treaties compared to the storm around “democracy”, financial meltdown, human rights and everything else associated with Brexit. Where were all the high profile agitators back then ?

        I find it hard to remember the names and years of the treaties which I guess is an indicator of the power of “salami slicing”, a series of many small actions, often performed by clandestine means, that as an accumulated whole produces a much larger action or result that would be difficult or unlawful to perform all at once. Any high street survey where UK citizens were asked to name the EU treaties since 1972 would I guess, likely come back with low scores.
        1975 Trevi 1978 Single European Act …..why bother ? people here will know them all.

        • I fully agree with your description showing that EU institutions and jobs or top key positions were created in a secretive and non logic manner. with regard to Ms Asthon called Baroness Ashton of Upland I am really annoyed to see her role as EU ‘Foreign Minister’ during the Ukraine crisis. It was her and her female English speaking friend Victoria Nuland the former US ambassador to Ukraine who happened to hand over 5 US$ billion to West Ukrainian Nazis later fighting in Donez. The so called EU Army will be ship with no Captain and with a lot of German Russian haters. The English people have to understand that their INDEPENCE is vital to survival. Only a British independent Army and Foreign Office will stay out of wars with Russia that are instigated by a Top US diplomat like Victoria Nuland and EU foreign minister Ms Ashton. Fortunately the new US admiistration threw Nuland out right after inauguration.

  4. A good and necessary policy. We need to support our military and encourage them to take our side in ousting the government if they do not desist from further military integration.

    Or descendants future is still at stake, even if we successfully exit the EU; we need to be prepared to do whatever is necessary to stop this.

  5. The above analysis is somewhat incomplete as in addition to cuts, what the government has been (rightly) trying to do is to shift resources to internal security, including MI5 (huge expansion) and the home office (for immigration). As an ex-immigration officer (part of what they now call border force) I can tell you that the problem isn’t only the actual borders, the problem is what happens once people are already in the country, this is handled by the Home Office not border force. We could make sure people only entered the country if they had the right to do so, but once they are in they often decide they suddenly want to claim they are refugees,or do a bogus marriage, or sign up to study, or disappear, whatever. Then it is up to the home office to manage them and process them. The home office in my experience is a seriously compromised organisation for several factors, one is that it is a target for infiltration by fraudsters who can make a lot of money selling the right to remain in the country, and secondly because of the unions who are hostile to any concept of british identity and so frustrate the intentions of the government policy.

    Actually I would argue is that what we need is a population management strategy rather than a border strategy. The UKs borders are relatively easy to manage given we are a single country on an island. It is lack of political will to enforce laws and policies that causes issues with our borders. The bigger difficulty is managing the population that lives here. At a simple level, we don’t even have border exit controls so we don’t actually know who is here. We don’t deport except in extreme cases. We don’t send refugees home once the problem they were fleeing is resolved. We don’t have id cards. We don’t have police registrations. We don’t do a census any more.

  6. “… BREXIT and beyond”
    UKIP’s raison d’etre captured, encapsulated, defined in only three beautiful, powerful words.

    The answer to every comment along the lines of “We’ve got Brexit what do we need you lot for?”

    I would like to suggest that anyone that thinks we don’t need a powerful military needs to think again. Not only now but especially when it comes to the ‘beyond’ bit. In listening to Henry’s speech online I picked up his comment that ‘Switzerland has more tanks than we do and they are neutral’.

    That is the whole point. The Swiss can afford to be neutral. Peace through strength.

    When in the army in South Africa one of my men needed permission to be excused from attending a Saturday parade. (We were in a Commando, the rough equivalent of a unit in the Territorial Army here in Britain. When not on active service we kept our rifles and full army kit at home.)

    He explained that he was a Swiss national and had been called up by his Embassy for target practice. In discussion I was surprised to learn that the Swiss had a defence force system with part-time soldiers very similar to the one we had in SA in those days. Although we were constantly training for the ‘day when the balloon went up’ it never did. The closest we ever came to a conventional war was in Angola where the Cubans and Russians took us on, but probably wished they hadn’t. (For the record I wasn’t in that one. I’d retired from the army by then.)

    If we are to keep the Falklands and its rich resources and protect our interests in Africa which the EU has already hinted that they have an interest in, we need the military strength and reach to do so.

    Sun Tzu: “In times of peace prepare for war.”

    Do that and we may never need to fight one.

    It works for the Swiss.

    • Surely the Swiss have more tanks because they are landlocked and invasion is going to come over land. I think the issue of tanks is a false one because the problems we face are not going to require tanks to solve. I don’t agree with the idea we need to build up a full spectrum capability as that is a recipe for wasting money. But I do think the priorities are wrong, for example we do need an amphibious capability and a carrier to protect the amphibious landing, so we need HMS Ocean plus one carrier, but not two carriers and no HMS Ocean. When are we ever going to need two carriers, most places we want to bomb can be reached from bases we have or can share. We have managed a bombing campaign in Syria, Iraq and Libya without using a carrier.

      • Our one carrier could be in the middle of a major refit the day the Argentinians invade. We need an absolute minimum of two of any type of major vessel, and preferably three to allow for unplanned outages. We maintain four SSBNs to be confident of having one sitting at the bottom of the Atlantic at any one time.

        • Argies? Invade? No. Because a SSN with cruise missiles can whack Argentina. Our aircraft carriers have no aircraft at all and will only have 24 (shared with the RAF ) by 2025.
          And no picket ships. Scrap ’em. Build frigates that can actually be used.

  7. On the 10th November ‘News Review’ I asked the question,
    “Please, where can I find the UKIP leadership’s (UKIP key people) views on,
    Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO)”
    It is impressive that since then Henry Bolton set up a meeting in London to give a thorough recorded answer to the issues around PESCO. I watched the speech yesterday on you tube, however this transcript really helps to take in the content of this comprehensive speech.
    One can only hope it gains wider readership and that Henry Bolton’s UKIP “Save Our Services” message spreads.

    Thanks for this transcript.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*