I second the notion to deploy troops to Northern Ireland as proposed by the honorable Lord Cameron.
-Jeremy McCoy
-Jeremy McCoy
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
((1. You can't second a motion from a different house.
2. You can't second your own motion, which is still on the table.))
"Mr. Speaker,
"The Honourable Gentleman does not realize the consequences of this motion upon the people of Northern Ireland. The deployment of the military can only lead to outright public outrage and violence in the region. Now, the Home Secretary has presented a proposal, which will be amended in the coming days. It is my belief that the path of peace and cooperation must emerge victorious against the militant reactionarism for which some call, it should."
((I should also mention, if anyone actually read the thing, that Lord Cameron didn't motion anything. He was just scrutinizing.
@Firehound15 - Also, I'm opening voting tomorrow, and I think I have literally nothing from you in terms of legislation.))
@Firehound15 - Also, I'm opening voting tomorrow, and I think I have literally nothing from you in terms of legislation.))
- 1
Mr. Speaker,
Does the Prime Minister not realize that this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has lost control of Londonderry to demagogues and terrorists? Should I also have to remind the Prime Minister and his supporters on this side of the House that the last time this House supported a Conservative Prime Minister in inaction against demagogues we laid the basis of the greatest massacre of our life time and the greatest failure of British Foreign Policy in living memory. Mr Speaker, I call upon the Prime Minister, nay, on this entire House, to return peace and order to Northern Ireland with the rightious and lawful force invested in us by a duty not only to the citizens of Northern Ireland, who now rightfully fear for their futures as these demagogues march unopposed to the streets of Londonderry, but to the Crown and the United Kingdom which is torn apart as Downing Street watches passively and ineffectively as it has done less than two score years ago.
Thornbloom
Does the Prime Minister not realize that this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has lost control of Londonderry to demagogues and terrorists? Should I also have to remind the Prime Minister and his supporters on this side of the House that the last time this House supported a Conservative Prime Minister in inaction against demagogues we laid the basis of the greatest massacre of our life time and the greatest failure of British Foreign Policy in living memory. Mr Speaker, I call upon the Prime Minister, nay, on this entire House, to return peace and order to Northern Ireland with the rightious and lawful force invested in us by a duty not only to the citizens of Northern Ireland, who now rightfully fear for their futures as these demagogues march unopposed to the streets of Londonderry, but to the Crown and the United Kingdom which is torn apart as Downing Street watches passively and ineffectively as it has done less than two score years ago.
Thornbloom
Mr Speaker,
No doubt you share my disgust at the play-acting that is going on in the House. After the tragedy of Londonderry, our minds should be focused on protecting our people, not scheming and sniping and trying to gain off the blood that has been spilled. Now, for all their efforts to focus accountability on my Rt Hon Friend, the Home Secretary, the Opposition has never been a true friend of Ulster, and the separatist insurgency was allowed to gather steam under the calamitous ministry of the Rt Hon Member for Glasgow North West. With Labour so readily letting Cyprus slip between its fingers, it is no wonder that the terrorists felt sufficiently brave to launch their assault on Ulster.
As such, I reject the idea that the Home Secretary has not served credibly in his present office. He has placed himself in the very firing line; he will survive the Opposition’s jeers just as he has survived their allies’ bullets. But I do worry that my Rt Hon Friend might have, as they say, 'gone native'. His obvious sympathies for the province and its people have stayed his hand from enacting the harsh but necessary measures to restore order. Compassion is not a trait to be condemned. It does not, however, lend itself to clear-sighted decision-making.
What this country faces in Northern Ireland is nothing less than armed insurrection. The so-called Irish Republican Army – a Marxist front, in collusion with our enemies abroad, both in the former colonies and the Soviet Empire – is spearheading a war against Britain. Now, when you are in a war, do you denounce your own soldiers? Do you strip them of their equipment, and send them back to their barracks? Do you decide that from now on, your own forces should contain a proportion of the enemy’s population, in order to be ‘fair’? Certainly not. Fairness has no place in war. No country has ever survived a conflict that it did not pursue with utter firmness and a righteous belief in its own cause. This quibbling, this false equivalency – this is the madness of Munich.
What Ulster needs now is an iron hand. Our weakness in the face of the Marxist rebels has merely emboldened the enemy, not appeased them. Appeasement can never succeed, for no man respects another who bows and scrapes to his whim without having to decency to defend himself. When the Army was prevented from rising to the defence of Northern Ireland, the insurgency – which would have been utterly crushed – was allowed to entrench itself. If we proceed now to defang and disestablish the Royal Ulster Constabulary, we shall lose the whole province to rebellion within a decade. And in interim, the lives of good British boys shall be lost in a quagmire of Westminster’s devising.
I call upon my Rt Hon Friends, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, to screw their courage to the sticking-plate, and to meet the enemy head on. They are not Marxist sympathisers; they are merely decent men faced with an implacable enemy. They must repent of appeasement, toleration and indulgence, and realise that we are at war. They must stand firm with the Ulstermen, who have patriotically placed themselves at our disposal, and who understand our insidious enemy. They must bring peace to Northern Ireland, if necessary, by fire and sword.
As such, I hereby move,
No doubt you share my disgust at the play-acting that is going on in the House. After the tragedy of Londonderry, our minds should be focused on protecting our people, not scheming and sniping and trying to gain off the blood that has been spilled. Now, for all their efforts to focus accountability on my Rt Hon Friend, the Home Secretary, the Opposition has never been a true friend of Ulster, and the separatist insurgency was allowed to gather steam under the calamitous ministry of the Rt Hon Member for Glasgow North West. With Labour so readily letting Cyprus slip between its fingers, it is no wonder that the terrorists felt sufficiently brave to launch their assault on Ulster.
As such, I reject the idea that the Home Secretary has not served credibly in his present office. He has placed himself in the very firing line; he will survive the Opposition’s jeers just as he has survived their allies’ bullets. But I do worry that my Rt Hon Friend might have, as they say, 'gone native'. His obvious sympathies for the province and its people have stayed his hand from enacting the harsh but necessary measures to restore order. Compassion is not a trait to be condemned. It does not, however, lend itself to clear-sighted decision-making.
What this country faces in Northern Ireland is nothing less than armed insurrection. The so-called Irish Republican Army – a Marxist front, in collusion with our enemies abroad, both in the former colonies and the Soviet Empire – is spearheading a war against Britain. Now, when you are in a war, do you denounce your own soldiers? Do you strip them of their equipment, and send them back to their barracks? Do you decide that from now on, your own forces should contain a proportion of the enemy’s population, in order to be ‘fair’? Certainly not. Fairness has no place in war. No country has ever survived a conflict that it did not pursue with utter firmness and a righteous belief in its own cause. This quibbling, this false equivalency – this is the madness of Munich.
What Ulster needs now is an iron hand. Our weakness in the face of the Marxist rebels has merely emboldened the enemy, not appeased them. Appeasement can never succeed, for no man respects another who bows and scrapes to his whim without having to decency to defend himself. When the Army was prevented from rising to the defence of Northern Ireland, the insurgency – which would have been utterly crushed – was allowed to entrench itself. If we proceed now to defang and disestablish the Royal Ulster Constabulary, we shall lose the whole province to rebellion within a decade. And in interim, the lives of good British boys shall be lost in a quagmire of Westminster’s devising.
I call upon my Rt Hon Friends, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, to screw their courage to the sticking-plate, and to meet the enemy head on. They are not Marxist sympathisers; they are merely decent men faced with an implacable enemy. They must repent of appeasement, toleration and indulgence, and realise that we are at war. They must stand firm with the Ulstermen, who have patriotically placed themselves at our disposal, and who understand our insidious enemy. They must bring peace to Northern Ireland, if necessary, by fire and sword.
As such, I hereby move,
Tom Saxon
"Mr. Speaker,
The... Honourable Gentleman does not understand the circumstances we are currently met with. He speaks of chaos in Northern Ireland, but does not realize the relative silence of the region under our current policy direction. We have made a choice, we have, to avoid he escalation of conflict in Northern Ireland and to instead protect the current order, and because of this choice, the die has been cast - as long as this government stands, we will not succumb to base instinct and institute martial law in Northern Ireland."
Thornbloom scoffs at the Prime Minister's mistake regarding the fact that he is still Right Honourable
Mr. Speaker,
The Prime Minister equates a city which has declared itself free from the rule of both the Northern Ireland and that of the United Kingdom with relative silence; how can our allies feel anything but contempt for a United Kingdom fallen so far as to be incapable to deliver peace and order in the face of Marxists and Nationalist terrorists? How can this House respect the authority of a Prime Minister incapable in keeping the Kingdom united and the nation prosperous? Indeed, he has shown defiance, but against This House united in its resolve to maintain peace in the United Kingdom, he has shown stubborness, in declaring that the deaths of servants of the crown and civilians as acceptable offer to unsuccessful appeasement. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Prime Minister, that unlike his Green Conservatives, we, veterans of the greatest war and tragedy of our life time and defenders of the Union, shall not succumb to Marxists and terrorists.
The Rt. Hon. David Thornbloom MP
"Mr. Speaker,
"Peace is not best achieved through use of force, regardless of what some factors may say. Peace may only be achieved through a commitment to realistic and pragmatic compromise, and it is this government's intent to end the current situation involving Northern Irish insurrectionists, but this is a process best approached not from the aggression of some, but rather through peaceful negotiations.
"This government is not only a government for the few, for just one subset of Britons. It is a government for all British citizens, and it is my intent to fight for a position where we will respect and cooperate - not where we will devolve into an outright civil war, such as the Right Honourable Gentleman is suggesting we do."
PRIVATE EYE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
May 1972 — TENPENCE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
We Can't Think of a Clever Title so Have this Picture.
Today we have the misfortune of introducing our latest interviewee, Mr. Hornesby. Arthur Hernesboy III is an incredibly stupid man who will no doubt exacerbate the current issues that dominate the nation's media and his own party. A stinky man with a stinky face and a stink bearing on life, he came to our studio with all the happiness of a German being told that he can never work again. It is expected that following this publication Mr. Holybird will try to sue us, to which we will respond that first he has to learn what currency is, than come back to us._____________________________________________________________________________________________
May 1972 — TENPENCE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
We Can't Think of a Clever Title so Have this Picture.
Regardless of the opinions of Mr. Harresty, we are legally obligated to provide you with this slop.
Thus:
- - - - OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT - - - -
Arthur Burr-Hewitt (ABH): "Today on the Eye, we have a fresh face in the Conservative Party with us. We say fresh face, but it is the Conservatives so have a couple lumps of salt in that tea. Today we are graced the the Right Honourable Mr. Arthur Hornesby [Hairy], the Conservative MP for Hertford and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He's the man that took the sword of fiscal conservatism and thrust it into the heart of all those industrial jobs you had. Welcome Mr. Hornesby [Higgly-Piggly]."
Mr. Arthamur Hortny (AH): "It's a pleasure to be here. I'm quite a fan of the Eye so I'm glad I can finally grace its pages myself."
ABH: "Now you are a noted fiscal conservative, having been at the forefront of killing Comrade Ida. Would you then say you are a member of Thornbloom's caucus?"
AH: "Not at all. While I did campaign hard against the IDA, that was because it was a terrible piece of legislation. But I disagree completely with how Thornbloom has been conducting himself and constantly undermining Conservative unity for his own interests. Honestly, I think he is still bitter about losing the leadership race to Ryley six years ago and has never been able to get past that since."
ABH: "Then would you place yourself firmly in Ryley's caucus?"
AH: "While I support Prime Minister Ryley and believe he is the best leader for the Conservative Party and for Britain, I would not describe myself as being firmly within his caucus. I've had some private disagreements with him in the past over certain policy positions of his and his handling of the situation with Mr. Thornbloom. I believe, first and foremost, in a united Conservative Party and wouldn't place myself firmly in any caucus."
ABH: "What are these disagreements?"
AH: "Well, I disagree with Prime Minister Ryley's stance on industrial subsidies. While I think it is important to ensure that there are good paying jobs for the average Briton, promising to never reduce subsidies for an unprofitable factory is to me a very inflexible position in light of our current economic problems. I also disagree with Prime Minister Ryley on how he has handled social issues, particularly over some of the concessions that he has made on issues such as abortion."
ABH: "Firstly, do you feel these industrial subsidies have contributed to the current state of stagflation in the economy?
Secondly, are you not afraid of the unions doing to Ryley as they did to Jacobs?"
AH: "To answer your first question, I do believe that industrial subsidies have contributed to the large deficit that we now have especially with the large increase in them we saw under the Monaghan government following the passage of the IDA. As the deficit has contributed to the issue of stagflation that has arisen, I do believe addressing industrial subsidies should be part of how we work to decrease the deficit.
To answer your second question, I do believe that the unions are threat to this government. They have never been friends of the Conservative Party and, in fact, it is because Labour has been so beholden to them that we got the IDA in the first place. I am frankly surprised there hasn't been a general strike yet in retaliation for our repeal of the IDA. However, I am not supportive of the extreme measures that have been proposed by Mr. Thornbloom to combat unions. I do believe in the need to foster cooperation between workers and management and to ensure that there is transparency in the actions of unions so that they do not attempt to work to the detriment of those workers who are not a part of them but would be affected by their actions anyway. Ultimately, I think that unions have become too powerful but we need to find more acceptable ways to lessen their influence without starting a full on war with unions."
ABH: "So do you hold Ryley responsible for the issue of stagflation?"
AH: "No I do not. I think stagflation is a result of the terrible economic situation that Labour left us in. If it weren't for the devastation of our private sector and the massive, unsustainable increases in social spending that occurred under the Monaghan government, we wouldn't be in this situation. But because we have had to try to bring businesses back to Britain and encourage future economic growth due to Labour's inability to handle the economy, we now have to deal with stagflation."
ABH: "But didn't you just say that Ryley's industrial subsidies were a major part of the deficit which boosted the inflation? Which is it Mr.Hornesby [Hiney], did Ryley have nothing to do with it or did the industrial subsidies help create the current stagflationary environment?"
AH: "These industrial subsidies are not a result of Prime Minister Ryley. They are subsidies that have been around for some time and were increased during the Monaghan government in order to prop up industries that were only struggling because of the flight of capital and disruption of the private sector brought about by the IDA. My issue is Prime Minister Ryley's insistence that these subsidies not be reduced for unprofitable and inefficient factories that have only become such as a result of the actions of the previous government. If we were to consider cutting some of these subsidies it would go a long way to bringing the deficit in check and fighting stagflation."
ABH: "So in your logic, and I'm just checking here, it is not the fault of the Prime Minister for stagflation. Regardless of the fact that he had the ability to reduce the subsidies to a fiscally manageable standpoint, the full blame instead falls on the previous Labour government.
Is that right?"
AH: "No, that is not right. I am not assigning full blame on anyone. Yes, Labour blew up subsidies as a result of the IDA which contributed to our ballooning deficit. And yes, Prime Minister Ryley has closed off one of the routes by which we may reduce the deficit and deal with stagflation by refusing to cut subsidies. But I am not blaming any one individual for the situation we are now in. I hope this has clarified what I have said."
ABH: "Then what are other ways of reducing the deficit without taking away hardworking Briton's jobs via the removal of subsidies from their workplaces?"
AH: "Before I answer your question, I would like to refute the idea that cutting subsidies is taking away the jobs of hardworking Britons. That is a harsh twisting of what it is. Cutting subsidies, especially in the situation we currently find ourselves in, is reducing inefficiency and unsustainability in our industrial sector. I think if cutting subsidies is coupled with measures encouraging the creation of sustainable jobs in the areas that would be affected, it would in fact be the elimination of unsustainable jobs and their replacement with sustainable jobs. I think it is better that hardworking Britons have jobs that can be sustained by the economy, rather than unsustainable jobs that burden our government with debt.
Now, to answer your question, there are multiple other ways in which the deficit can be reduced. We could increase taxes to bring in more revenue. We could cut spending on welfare programs, such as the NHS, or the military. We could reform welfare programs to reduce waste and increase efficiency. We could do a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. These are but several solutions that would work to reduce the deficit. I am not saying the government is considering all of these, as some of these are either against the principles of the Conservative Party or unpopular with the British people."
ABH: "Again you contradict yourself. Can you stop doing this Mr.Hornesby [Hornblower]? You just said that cutting subsidies wouldn't take away jobs, then turned around and said that the Conservatives would create sustainable jobs for the ones lost following the cuts to said subsidies. I will drop this line of questioning. This is going nowhere Mr. Secretary of State for Industry.
So you said that one of the biggest sticking points with you socially was the issue of abortion?"
AH: "Yes, indeed it is. I think the Prime Minister has simply given up on the issue and accepted the very radical legalization of abortion up to 24 weeks without trying to seek a more moderate solution, which would be to have it legalized in a more limited fashion while supporting more funding for adoption services as an alternative to abortion."
ABH: "Is this the most important social issue in your mind right now?"
AH: "I mean, there is also the issue of immigration which Mr. Powell has brought up recently. I think it is important that we maintain British culture and traditions in the face of increased immigration. It is also important that we understand that we are a British nation and that immigrants are expected to integrate into our society so that they may be a part of our culture rather than trying to assert their cultural traditions onto us."
ABH: "Ah yes, frothing rivers of blood. I definitely can see what Mr. Powell means. Rivers of blood bloom under the 54,895 non-white immigrants to this nation. But not in Ireland, where actual bloodshed is seen on British soil.
So, Mr.Hornesby [Hasnoidea]. How is it that Immigration and Abortion are greater threats to our society then it literally falling apart in Northern Ireland?"
AH: "I don't think they are greater threats than the current situation in Northern Ireland. The violence we've seen there is horrible and, frankly, I was surprised when the Prime Minister didn't send troops in to resolve the situation. We need to end the ongoing open conflict between Catholics and Protestants that has brought Northern Ireland to a standstill and bring back peace to the region. I think sending in British troops would be the best way to do so.
Also, before you try to accuse me of contradicting myself again, Mr. Burr-Hewitt, I will tell you right now that I never, during the course of this interview, said that immigration and abortion were greater issues than the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. Only that they were areas in which I disagreed with Prime Minister Ryley. I hope you take note of that."
ABH: "No, it just wasn't the chief social issue on your mind. Not exactly a rare sentiment from a Conservative Party cabinet member to be fair. To end this off, do you have any plans for the future in the purview of your department?"
AH: "I'll say right now that I understand the importance of the situation in Northern Ireland and the need to resolve it and avoid further bloodshed. It simply did not come to mind as a social issue when you asked that question.
Now, to answer your question, I have plans to continue to work with the EEC to facilitate greater trade with the rest of Europe. I also plan on looking at some of the more restrictive regulations that Labour has implemented in the previous government and beyond to see if there are any ways to remove some of the more burdensome ones and allow greater industrial and economic growth."
ABH: "Sounds very optimistic. It's been interesting to speak to you Mr.Hornesby [Hardlieducated]."
AH: "I would say the same Mr. Burr-Hewitt."
Mr. Arthamur Hortny (AH): "It's a pleasure to be here. I'm quite a fan of the Eye so I'm glad I can finally grace its pages myself."
ABH: "Now you are a noted fiscal conservative, having been at the forefront of killing Comrade Ida. Would you then say you are a member of Thornbloom's caucus?"
AH: "Not at all. While I did campaign hard against the IDA, that was because it was a terrible piece of legislation. But I disagree completely with how Thornbloom has been conducting himself and constantly undermining Conservative unity for his own interests. Honestly, I think he is still bitter about losing the leadership race to Ryley six years ago and has never been able to get past that since."
ABH: "Then would you place yourself firmly in Ryley's caucus?"
AH: "While I support Prime Minister Ryley and believe he is the best leader for the Conservative Party and for Britain, I would not describe myself as being firmly within his caucus. I've had some private disagreements with him in the past over certain policy positions of his and his handling of the situation with Mr. Thornbloom. I believe, first and foremost, in a united Conservative Party and wouldn't place myself firmly in any caucus."
ABH: "What are these disagreements?"
AH: "Well, I disagree with Prime Minister Ryley's stance on industrial subsidies. While I think it is important to ensure that there are good paying jobs for the average Briton, promising to never reduce subsidies for an unprofitable factory is to me a very inflexible position in light of our current economic problems. I also disagree with Prime Minister Ryley on how he has handled social issues, particularly over some of the concessions that he has made on issues such as abortion."
ABH: "Firstly, do you feel these industrial subsidies have contributed to the current state of stagflation in the economy?
Secondly, are you not afraid of the unions doing to Ryley as they did to Jacobs?"
AH: "To answer your first question, I do believe that industrial subsidies have contributed to the large deficit that we now have especially with the large increase in them we saw under the Monaghan government following the passage of the IDA. As the deficit has contributed to the issue of stagflation that has arisen, I do believe addressing industrial subsidies should be part of how we work to decrease the deficit.
To answer your second question, I do believe that the unions are threat to this government. They have never been friends of the Conservative Party and, in fact, it is because Labour has been so beholden to them that we got the IDA in the first place. I am frankly surprised there hasn't been a general strike yet in retaliation for our repeal of the IDA. However, I am not supportive of the extreme measures that have been proposed by Mr. Thornbloom to combat unions. I do believe in the need to foster cooperation between workers and management and to ensure that there is transparency in the actions of unions so that they do not attempt to work to the detriment of those workers who are not a part of them but would be affected by their actions anyway. Ultimately, I think that unions have become too powerful but we need to find more acceptable ways to lessen their influence without starting a full on war with unions."
ABH: "So do you hold Ryley responsible for the issue of stagflation?"
AH: "No I do not. I think stagflation is a result of the terrible economic situation that Labour left us in. If it weren't for the devastation of our private sector and the massive, unsustainable increases in social spending that occurred under the Monaghan government, we wouldn't be in this situation. But because we have had to try to bring businesses back to Britain and encourage future economic growth due to Labour's inability to handle the economy, we now have to deal with stagflation."
ABH: "But didn't you just say that Ryley's industrial subsidies were a major part of the deficit which boosted the inflation? Which is it Mr.
AH: "These industrial subsidies are not a result of Prime Minister Ryley. They are subsidies that have been around for some time and were increased during the Monaghan government in order to prop up industries that were only struggling because of the flight of capital and disruption of the private sector brought about by the IDA. My issue is Prime Minister Ryley's insistence that these subsidies not be reduced for unprofitable and inefficient factories that have only become such as a result of the actions of the previous government. If we were to consider cutting some of these subsidies it would go a long way to bringing the deficit in check and fighting stagflation."
ABH: "So in your logic, and I'm just checking here, it is not the fault of the Prime Minister for stagflation. Regardless of the fact that he had the ability to reduce the subsidies to a fiscally manageable standpoint, the full blame instead falls on the previous Labour government.
Is that right?"
AH: "No, that is not right. I am not assigning full blame on anyone. Yes, Labour blew up subsidies as a result of the IDA which contributed to our ballooning deficit. And yes, Prime Minister Ryley has closed off one of the routes by which we may reduce the deficit and deal with stagflation by refusing to cut subsidies. But I am not blaming any one individual for the situation we are now in. I hope this has clarified what I have said."
ABH: "Then what are other ways of reducing the deficit without taking away hardworking Briton's jobs via the removal of subsidies from their workplaces?"
AH: "Before I answer your question, I would like to refute the idea that cutting subsidies is taking away the jobs of hardworking Britons. That is a harsh twisting of what it is. Cutting subsidies, especially in the situation we currently find ourselves in, is reducing inefficiency and unsustainability in our industrial sector. I think if cutting subsidies is coupled with measures encouraging the creation of sustainable jobs in the areas that would be affected, it would in fact be the elimination of unsustainable jobs and their replacement with sustainable jobs. I think it is better that hardworking Britons have jobs that can be sustained by the economy, rather than unsustainable jobs that burden our government with debt.
Now, to answer your question, there are multiple other ways in which the deficit can be reduced. We could increase taxes to bring in more revenue. We could cut spending on welfare programs, such as the NHS, or the military. We could reform welfare programs to reduce waste and increase efficiency. We could do a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. These are but several solutions that would work to reduce the deficit. I am not saying the government is considering all of these, as some of these are either against the principles of the Conservative Party or unpopular with the British people."
ABH: "Again you contradict yourself. Can you stop doing this Mr.
So you said that one of the biggest sticking points with you socially was the issue of abortion?"
AH: "Yes, indeed it is. I think the Prime Minister has simply given up on the issue and accepted the very radical legalization of abortion up to 24 weeks without trying to seek a more moderate solution, which would be to have it legalized in a more limited fashion while supporting more funding for adoption services as an alternative to abortion."
ABH: "Is this the most important social issue in your mind right now?"
AH: "I mean, there is also the issue of immigration which Mr. Powell has brought up recently. I think it is important that we maintain British culture and traditions in the face of increased immigration. It is also important that we understand that we are a British nation and that immigrants are expected to integrate into our society so that they may be a part of our culture rather than trying to assert their cultural traditions onto us."
ABH: "Ah yes, frothing rivers of blood. I definitely can see what Mr. Powell means. Rivers of blood bloom under the 54,895 non-white immigrants to this nation. But not in Ireland, where actual bloodshed is seen on British soil.
So, Mr.
AH: "I don't think they are greater threats than the current situation in Northern Ireland. The violence we've seen there is horrible and, frankly, I was surprised when the Prime Minister didn't send troops in to resolve the situation. We need to end the ongoing open conflict between Catholics and Protestants that has brought Northern Ireland to a standstill and bring back peace to the region. I think sending in British troops would be the best way to do so.
Also, before you try to accuse me of contradicting myself again, Mr. Burr-Hewitt, I will tell you right now that I never, during the course of this interview, said that immigration and abortion were greater issues than the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. Only that they were areas in which I disagreed with Prime Minister Ryley. I hope you take note of that."
ABH: "No, it just wasn't the chief social issue on your mind. Not exactly a rare sentiment from a Conservative Party cabinet member to be fair. To end this off, do you have any plans for the future in the purview of your department?"
AH: "I'll say right now that I understand the importance of the situation in Northern Ireland and the need to resolve it and avoid further bloodshed. It simply did not come to mind as a social issue when you asked that question.
Now, to answer your question, I have plans to continue to work with the EEC to facilitate greater trade with the rest of Europe. I also plan on looking at some of the more restrictive regulations that Labour has implemented in the previous government and beyond to see if there are any ways to remove some of the more burdensome ones and allow greater industrial and economic growth."
ABH: "Sounds very optimistic. It's been interesting to speak to you Mr.
AH: "I would say the same Mr. Burr-Hewitt."
Last edited:
Hornesby throws the latest issue of the Private Eye into the trash after reading the introduction to his interview.
"What is it honey?"
"The Private Eye has completely humiliated me."
"I'm sure it is not that bad."
"Oh, it is dear. I don't know if I can show my face in Parliament again, let alone be taken seriously by anyone in the government."
"Don't worry, I'm sure it will wash over."
"I highly doubt it."
"What is it honey?"
"The Private Eye has completely humiliated me."
"I'm sure it is not that bad."
"Oh, it is dear. I don't know if I can show my face in Parliament again, let alone be taken seriously by anyone in the government."
"Don't worry, I'm sure it will wash over."
"I highly doubt it."
Monaghan leaves through the latest issue of the Eye on a slow day in Parliament
"A big fan, huh? My, my, doesn't look like he's going to be a fan of it any more..."
"A big fan, huh? My, my, doesn't look like he's going to be a fan of it any more..."
The clerk gives Mr MacAlastair a growl as they accept the many acts put forth by the individual.
Mr. Speaker,
The Conservative Party's economic incompetence, a word I do not use lightly, is hereby presented to us in its entirety. We have seen, in the past three years, out-of-control inflation, plummeting government revenue, and a complete refusal to do anything about it. I understand the Conservative commitment to laissez-faire, but I submit to this House that the purpose of a government is, shock upon shock, to govern, which the Conservative Party has steadfastly refused to do! Where is the Conservative proposal to tackle inflation? Nowhere! The Conservative Party has turned the economy upside-down and accomplished exactly nothing for its trouble. For all the Conservatives castigate industrial democracy, nobody can deny that it was effective at its purpose: to grant economic power to those who lacked it. What, pray tell, is the purpose of this Ryleynomics? To funnel money from the government and the people to the business elite as fast as humanly possible? At this rate, this inflation will so destabilize financial markets that it will not even succeed at that! The Secretary of State for Industry has freely admitted to a national publication that all of his government's ideas on economic policy contradict each other. The government's policy ideas, like equal positive and negative numbers, cancel each other out and produce nothing. Mr. Speaker, economic mismanagement is one thing. Economic negligence is quite another. The Conservative Party has failed in its most basic of responsibilities: governing the nation. They have actively betrayed the trust of the British people on their promise to deliver competent, responsible government. Conservative economic policy in this administration is not merely wrong; it is shamelessly negligent.
- The Rt. Hon. Alistair Monaghan MP
The Conservative Party's economic incompetence, a word I do not use lightly, is hereby presented to us in its entirety. We have seen, in the past three years, out-of-control inflation, plummeting government revenue, and a complete refusal to do anything about it. I understand the Conservative commitment to laissez-faire, but I submit to this House that the purpose of a government is, shock upon shock, to govern, which the Conservative Party has steadfastly refused to do! Where is the Conservative proposal to tackle inflation? Nowhere! The Conservative Party has turned the economy upside-down and accomplished exactly nothing for its trouble. For all the Conservatives castigate industrial democracy, nobody can deny that it was effective at its purpose: to grant economic power to those who lacked it. What, pray tell, is the purpose of this Ryleynomics? To funnel money from the government and the people to the business elite as fast as humanly possible? At this rate, this inflation will so destabilize financial markets that it will not even succeed at that! The Secretary of State for Industry has freely admitted to a national publication that all of his government's ideas on economic policy contradict each other. The government's policy ideas, like equal positive and negative numbers, cancel each other out and produce nothing. Mr. Speaker, economic mismanagement is one thing. Economic negligence is quite another. The Conservative Party has failed in its most basic of responsibilities: governing the nation. They have actively betrayed the trust of the British people on their promise to deliver competent, responsible government. Conservative economic policy in this administration is not merely wrong; it is shamelessly negligent.
- The Rt. Hon. Alistair Monaghan MP
Teesside Gazette
________________________________________________________________
John Epping
___________________________________________________________________ ___________
(More) Thoughts on the Irish Question?
________________________________________________________________
John Epping
___________________________________________________________________ ___________
(More) Thoughts on the Irish Question?
These past weeks have been an exciting time in Ireland, that other damp, foggy island separated from Europe by the power of nature. The Troubles are continuing and more and more people have been forced to face unpleasantness, which could not have been conceived two or three years ago. Many people, myself included, have trouble believing that this is happening on the British Isle, and not some far off remnant of our imperial history in the South Atlantic.
However, make no mistake: this is happening within modern Britain. Ulster is being treated by many like a foreign policy issue when in reality it is the biggest domestic crisis that Britain has faced in our politics and can only be solved through proper dialogue.
For once, a Conservative government has done something right. Though it pains me to say it, Mister Ryley’s decision not to commit British troops to Northern Ireland is the best course of action. The reason for this is simply the fact that it would spell the end for Ulster as part of Britain. If British troops were to enter the Six Counties, they would be greeted with contempt which would fester and boil into a form ultra-nationalism that will be impossible to suppress.
In order to understand this, we must look at the end of British rule in Dublin. After the Easter Rising, the act which ended any future of Ireland under the Crown was the execution of the Rising’s leaders. While the use of force to suppress the Rebels was welcomed by the people of Dublin, the executed men were instead viewed as innocent victims of German backed plot. This chaos that followed Ireland was all a result of this, and the rejection by Irishmen and women of British rule.
The deployment of British troops to Northern Ireland will be impossible to reverse, and the effects catastrophic. Ulster would descend into a state of violence not seen since the Civil War and Enoch Powell’s prophesied ‘Rivers of blood’ will flow, through the terrorism of the IRA, who will be spurred on by the support of the Southern Republic. It shall appear to the rest of the world that Oliver Cromwell’s ghost has come once more to drowned Ireland in blood.
Those thugs on the right of the Tory Party who imagine that sending troops in would be a good idea would not dream of sending in troops to settle a violent dispute in England, so why should Ulster be any different if their is no difference between their standing in the Union? Rather than be a force for Law and Order in the Six Counties, troops would further the position of IRA terrorists in the region. They would provide more targets for them to shoot at, more victims to murder and the biggest propaganda boom we can provide them with
Peace in Northern Ireland can only be achieved by a new form of direct rule as it stands in any other part of the country. We must remove the ability of Protestants to hinder and bully Catholics by an act of Parliament. This will allow us to preserve the peace of the region forever and reduce the fears of both parties.
The answer to peace is not to meet might with might; otherwise we risk taking Ireland to a brink from which we may never return it from.
((Note; Quotes from the OTL Debate 7 April 1970.))
If any hon. Member of this House or anyone outside it can find me inciting or advocating violence, I am willing to stand the charge either in this House or anywhere else.
I come to the second kind of violence which is at work in Northern Ireland, the violence which seeks to promote the aspiration for the absorption of the six counties of Northern Ireland into the Republic. That violence feeds upon the prospect of that aspiration being achieved. Unless the prospect of that achievement can be removed to a remote future, we can expect to see violence continue to feed and flourish upon that material.
There are three ways in which we in this House can, therefore, contribute to peace in Northern Ireland and to the security of the property and the lives of her citizens. The first is that neither by word nor deed do we treat the membership of the six counties in the United Kingdom as negotiable. Every word or act which holds out the prospect that their unity with the rest of the United Kingdom might be negotiable is itself, consciously or unconsciously, a contributory cause to the continuation of violence in Northern Ireland.
The second policy, which may not perhaps entirely commend itself to all my hon. Friends, is that we should work for a greater amalgamation and uniformity of administration, government, policy and economy in the six counties and in the rest of the United Kingdom. If we really intend the unity of the United Kingdom including the six counties, that unity must be seen in political and economic form. I realise that the present organisation of Northern Ireland reflects a long history—indeed, many of the false starts of history; but, if we mean to give assurance that the membership of the six counties in the United Kingdom will be, humanly speaking, permanent, then we have to be ready to draw the administrative and economic consquences from that.
Finally, I believe that we have to rationalise the present irrational status, in the law of the United Kingdom, of the Republic of Ireland and her citizens. At the moment it stands as complete unreality, a fragment of past history fifty years and more out of date. I believe that the frank recognition in the law of this country that the Republic and her citizens are what they have for centuries claimed, argued, desired and indeed fought to be, would bring a pacification to the situation, in that it would reinforce what we have got to inculcate namely, that the embodiment of the six counties in the United Kingdom is humanly speaking to be regarded as a permanancy and therefore something on which no description of violence is able to feed.
Mis Devlin
rose——
Mr. PowelI: I shall be finished in a couple of seconds. In nothing I have said is there the slightest particle, I will not say of hostility, but of ill will, to the Republic and her citizens. Much the contrary. But we in this House have a duty to our fellow subjects. whatever their views or religion—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or colour."]—or colour, who are living in Northern Ireland. I believe we can only discharge that duty by proving that they are part of us and we of them and that we intend in word and in deed that so long as is foreseeable it shall remain so.
Excerpted from the inaugural Leighton Lecture, given to the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House by the Shadow Secretary of State for Overseas Development, the Rt Hon George Kellaghan MP, on Monday 5th June, 1972. Recorded and published by International Affairs, the journal of the RIIA.
[…]
Last year, when the Charter of the Commonwealth Nations celebrated its first decade, there was little fanfare. We could read into this in either of two ways: either Britain, a nation recently squeamish about its colonial history or otherwise embarrassed at its loss of stature, saw nothing to commemorate in the success of the Commonwealth and so declined to do so; or else a more general complacency about Britain's place in the world has rendered the existence of the Commonwealth unremarkable.
The first view is fashionable only in Marxist circles nowadays, which still see self-flagellation on an international scale as necessary to atone for the crimes of colonialism, whose guilt the Commonwealth has inherited. This is the strange conflict of a dogma that would rush to the defence of the entire Commonwealth project if only it changed its name to the International. It is with relief, perhaps, that we can speak of this view as having largely died with the Communist Party of Great Britain. Far more prevalent in the discourse of today's left, I think, is the confidence to defend internationalism – with a small ‘i’ – as a healthy evolution of socialism into diplomacy.
Counterintuitively, perhaps, it is the second view that is more dangerous to international relations. Complacency, of course, is a danger wherever it appears – idle minds will just as happily do the Devil's work as idle hands. Nowhere is this more true than in matters of diplomacy, where the collective mind is required to be alert to new developments in geopolitics at all times.
The abandonment of the Commonwealth from the top drawer of Britain's concerns represents a grave disservice to those for whom the Commonwealth represents the pinnacle of amicable international relations. This is not to say its preachers. Although we may take great pride in its existence as representative of a certain mode of conducting diplomacy, it is not for our gain that the Commonwealth survives. Unlike her colonialism, Britain's post-colonialism must focus on her Asian and African citizens. Whether in this respect the Commonwealth project merely represents the latest flowering of condescending Western attitudes to non-Western peoples – is democracy only palatable to us when it takes a familiar, Westernised form? – the fact of its survival as a mutualist, co-operative body remains. One of the reasons, perhaps, that successive Conservative governments have been so uneasy with the idea of decolonisation is not so much for the loss of prestige as the acceptance of a new, social-democratic world order. Regardless of domestic policies, the continued existence of all supra-national bodies – whether it be the Commonwealth, the UN, NATO or the EEC – demonstrates that at the highest levels of global politics individualism is seen as undesirable.
That the development of the Commonwealth, and the Empire before it, should have been driven so heavily by individuals is therefore perhaps ironic. We have a lingering vision of the British Empire forged by exceptional, sometimes frightening men whose names ring out across the centuries: Drake, Clive, Elgin, Rhodes. The pursuit of capital that necessitated the collection of an empire was never a conscious goal of foreign policy, after all. There was no great outcry for empire even in the dizzy days of Lord Beaconsfield, as is reflected in the architecture of the old Foreign and Colonial Offices in Whitehall. In many ways, the British Empire is history's most potent side-effect.
The Commonwealth too was birthed by individuals, exceptional in their own ways but only on a human scale: When now-Lord Marr was first formulating his views on the future of the Empire, he was more often recognised for his youth and his hairstyle than for his work in post-colonial praxis; Sylvia Leighton, shamingly, was always first and foremost a woman rather than an architect. Aside from which, they are differentiated from their colonial forebears by their mentalities towards the people of the Commonwealth, which, while still perhaps economic, were never mercenary.
Indeed, as an instrument of socialism – and here I put the emphasis on the social – the Charter of the Commonwealth of Nations is a beautiful and telling document. It codifies the idea of the equality of nations, just as the radical documents of the centuries before spoke of the equality of Man. Ideas of collective security have existed since the first alliances were made between prehistoric cave-peoples. Never before have they been translated so actively into collective development. No other supra-national body, before or since, has placed a commitment to mutual development as such a core value. This is something of which I am immensely proud, despite being unable to claim any sort of responsibility for it. I am proud that Britain and the Commonwealth have been at the forefront of crafting an alternative vision of geopolitics to the exceptionalism and antagonism of the Cold War.
Of course, not everything can go right. Today we see the sobering warnings of the consequences of neglect in Burma, where a regretfully messy British exit did nothing to quell existing tensions in the region or otherwise reassure actors in the politics of the Subcontinent. Theorists in the past claimed, we now see naïvely, that free trade would end war as nations became so interdependent that conflict would be too detrimental to even consider. This is a flawed and overly simplistic view of global relations, yet it is equally flawed to suggest that economic forces play no part in the development of conflict. Too much or too little development by external parties is often the death knell for stability in a region. Just as the imposition of the railroad and the telegraph upon Asian communities in the last century sowed the seeds of this century's violent nationalism, overly intimate relations between rulers and their Western backers will more often than not foment domestic resentment and unrest.
These are the limits between which we must pitch future Comonwealth activities. The Commonwealth cannot lapse into a second wave of colonialism. The first three words of the Charter, describing the Commonwealth nations as being ‘united as equal’, are sincere. Therefore dignity must be accorded to all sovereign nations of the world. Overseas development, we have learnt, is not synonymous with Westernisation. Greater sympathy will be found for the solution that marries the preservation of a distinct national identity with the forming of ever closer bonds between nations. We have to always be wary of the dangers of imposition.
This, then, is the spirit in which I believe it is essential that the Commonwealth goes forward. Its hard-won internationalism and its optimism must not be allowed to fade – guarding against complacency in international relations will be a key task in the coming years – yet neither can they be squandered by heavy-handedness or a want of nuance. In the next decade Britain will finslly shed the last of her colonies and be confronted full-on by the final realities of the post-colonial age. This cannot be neo-colonialism. We must be vigilant that the equality and dignity afforded to all nations, so nobly enshrined in the Commonwealth Charter, are respected. This is the path to a world that is confident of its internationalism.
[…]
Last year, when the Charter of the Commonwealth Nations celebrated its first decade, there was little fanfare. We could read into this in either of two ways: either Britain, a nation recently squeamish about its colonial history or otherwise embarrassed at its loss of stature, saw nothing to commemorate in the success of the Commonwealth and so declined to do so; or else a more general complacency about Britain's place in the world has rendered the existence of the Commonwealth unremarkable.
The first view is fashionable only in Marxist circles nowadays, which still see self-flagellation on an international scale as necessary to atone for the crimes of colonialism, whose guilt the Commonwealth has inherited. This is the strange conflict of a dogma that would rush to the defence of the entire Commonwealth project if only it changed its name to the International. It is with relief, perhaps, that we can speak of this view as having largely died with the Communist Party of Great Britain. Far more prevalent in the discourse of today's left, I think, is the confidence to defend internationalism – with a small ‘i’ – as a healthy evolution of socialism into diplomacy.
Counterintuitively, perhaps, it is the second view that is more dangerous to international relations. Complacency, of course, is a danger wherever it appears – idle minds will just as happily do the Devil's work as idle hands. Nowhere is this more true than in matters of diplomacy, where the collective mind is required to be alert to new developments in geopolitics at all times.
The abandonment of the Commonwealth from the top drawer of Britain's concerns represents a grave disservice to those for whom the Commonwealth represents the pinnacle of amicable international relations. This is not to say its preachers. Although we may take great pride in its existence as representative of a certain mode of conducting diplomacy, it is not for our gain that the Commonwealth survives. Unlike her colonialism, Britain's post-colonialism must focus on her Asian and African citizens. Whether in this respect the Commonwealth project merely represents the latest flowering of condescending Western attitudes to non-Western peoples – is democracy only palatable to us when it takes a familiar, Westernised form? – the fact of its survival as a mutualist, co-operative body remains. One of the reasons, perhaps, that successive Conservative governments have been so uneasy with the idea of decolonisation is not so much for the loss of prestige as the acceptance of a new, social-democratic world order. Regardless of domestic policies, the continued existence of all supra-national bodies – whether it be the Commonwealth, the UN, NATO or the EEC – demonstrates that at the highest levels of global politics individualism is seen as undesirable.
That the development of the Commonwealth, and the Empire before it, should have been driven so heavily by individuals is therefore perhaps ironic. We have a lingering vision of the British Empire forged by exceptional, sometimes frightening men whose names ring out across the centuries: Drake, Clive, Elgin, Rhodes. The pursuit of capital that necessitated the collection of an empire was never a conscious goal of foreign policy, after all. There was no great outcry for empire even in the dizzy days of Lord Beaconsfield, as is reflected in the architecture of the old Foreign and Colonial Offices in Whitehall. In many ways, the British Empire is history's most potent side-effect.
The Commonwealth too was birthed by individuals, exceptional in their own ways but only on a human scale: When now-Lord Marr was first formulating his views on the future of the Empire, he was more often recognised for his youth and his hairstyle than for his work in post-colonial praxis; Sylvia Leighton, shamingly, was always first and foremost a woman rather than an architect. Aside from which, they are differentiated from their colonial forebears by their mentalities towards the people of the Commonwealth, which, while still perhaps economic, were never mercenary.
Indeed, as an instrument of socialism – and here I put the emphasis on the social – the Charter of the Commonwealth of Nations is a beautiful and telling document. It codifies the idea of the equality of nations, just as the radical documents of the centuries before spoke of the equality of Man. Ideas of collective security have existed since the first alliances were made between prehistoric cave-peoples. Never before have they been translated so actively into collective development. No other supra-national body, before or since, has placed a commitment to mutual development as such a core value. This is something of which I am immensely proud, despite being unable to claim any sort of responsibility for it. I am proud that Britain and the Commonwealth have been at the forefront of crafting an alternative vision of geopolitics to the exceptionalism and antagonism of the Cold War.
Of course, not everything can go right. Today we see the sobering warnings of the consequences of neglect in Burma, where a regretfully messy British exit did nothing to quell existing tensions in the region or otherwise reassure actors in the politics of the Subcontinent. Theorists in the past claimed, we now see naïvely, that free trade would end war as nations became so interdependent that conflict would be too detrimental to even consider. This is a flawed and overly simplistic view of global relations, yet it is equally flawed to suggest that economic forces play no part in the development of conflict. Too much or too little development by external parties is often the death knell for stability in a region. Just as the imposition of the railroad and the telegraph upon Asian communities in the last century sowed the seeds of this century's violent nationalism, overly intimate relations between rulers and their Western backers will more often than not foment domestic resentment and unrest.
These are the limits between which we must pitch future Comonwealth activities. The Commonwealth cannot lapse into a second wave of colonialism. The first three words of the Charter, describing the Commonwealth nations as being ‘united as equal’, are sincere. Therefore dignity must be accorded to all sovereign nations of the world. Overseas development, we have learnt, is not synonymous with Westernisation. Greater sympathy will be found for the solution that marries the preservation of a distinct national identity with the forming of ever closer bonds between nations. We have to always be wary of the dangers of imposition.
This, then, is the spirit in which I believe it is essential that the Commonwealth goes forward. Its hard-won internationalism and its optimism must not be allowed to fade – guarding against complacency in international relations will be a key task in the coming years – yet neither can they be squandered by heavy-handedness or a want of nuance. In the next decade Britain will finslly shed the last of her colonies and be confronted full-on by the final realities of the post-colonial age. This cannot be neo-colonialism. We must be vigilant that the equality and dignity afforded to all nations, so nobly enshrined in the Commonwealth Charter, are respected. This is the path to a world that is confident of its internationalism.
[…]
- 2
((A Day in the Life in House of Commons))
Steel: Zzz... Zzz... Ack! Oh... Scarlet, wait time is it?
Browne: Half-past noon, David.
Steel: Oh dear, seems I've dozed off a bit. Any debates I've missed?
Browne: Just that one.
Browne points across the aisle to the Prime Minister and Thornbloom, the two in a heated conversation.
Steel: Hmm, have the Tories put forth any bills in the meantime?
Browne: Not really. It seems reigniting the Tory Civil War has taken a lot of their time...
Steel: 'Fraid so. I've heard you and MacAlistair have been busy with legislation.
Browne: Yes, very. I believe our bills have actually outnumbered the government bills, in fact.
Steel: Not much of a Tory government, wouldn't ya say?
Browne: How high did you set your bar of expectation, David?
Steel: Zzz... Zzz... Ack! Oh... Scarlet, wait time is it?
Browne: Half-past noon, David.
Steel: Oh dear, seems I've dozed off a bit. Any debates I've missed?
Browne: Just that one.
Browne points across the aisle to the Prime Minister and Thornbloom, the two in a heated conversation.
Steel: Hmm, have the Tories put forth any bills in the meantime?
Browne: Not really. It seems reigniting the Tory Civil War has taken a lot of their time...
Steel: 'Fraid so. I've heard you and MacAlistair have been busy with legislation.
Browne: Yes, very. I believe our bills have actually outnumbered the government bills, in fact.
Steel: Not much of a Tory government, wouldn't ya say?
Browne: How high did you set your bar of expectation, David?