PC23: Falklands Oil Plan

[Ruth Murphy (LAB)]

We are in the middle of a major national security incident and the Conservative Party once again cannot keep its backbenchers - or ex-backbenchers, it’s honestly hard to keep up - in check. Conservative chaos has long disrupted Britain during crucial moments where we need government to show strength, and now it has reared its head again in the midst of a major national security incident. 

The truth is, I cannot blame Bibi Lauria for it. This is chaos that is endemic to the Conservative Party. They need, as their former Home Secretary openly admitted, a period in opposition.

[Alex Cardigan MP (LD)]

This whole debate has failed totally to take into account something very basic - the military and naval realities of the situation. In the air, there is no question we have the capacity to fight the Argentinians, should it come to that, but navally, in waters better known by them than us, I am not so sure. Neither is the Government, I would imagine, as no proper defence review has been implemented. I have campaigned relentlessly in Parliament for a real defence review and a restructuring of our armed forced for precisely situations like the one the country is facing. And yet we are still bereft totally of quality foreign policy leadership. We need a united front as a country here. I'll be frank - these are our waters, and we need to defend them, however we need to know not just what we're up against, but what our current capacity is - due to Conservative infighting and paralysis, our forces have been left in the lurch on the latter point.

[Victor Wolfe (CON)]

This Government has invested heavily in our armed forces- from making sure that soldiers are paid for the sacrifices that they make on a daily basis and those that they are brave enough to be prepared to make to ensuring they have the best equipment available. Our soldiers have shown they have the capacity and ability to defend the Falklands before, and we're making sure that they have the tools to do it again. I stand with those who are willing to give their lives- not those like Harry Saxon that want to degrade those who served or those who want to use them as a political prop like Wilfred Hart who wants to just get a party political broadcast out while brave men and women are willing to sacrifice for our fellow Britons. And I'll stand with our soldiers as they do what they do best.

[Quinn Shaw (LAB)]

It was a pleasure to travel to Gibraltar, meet with British subjects living there, and deliver an address on the future of the ongoing Tory-provoked conflict across the Atlantic. The Referendum Party is committed to winning the war decisively, protecting British individuals and investments in the Falklands, and giving both the Falklands and Gibraltar their own MP to represent their unique interests in Parliament. I called for enacting a military build-up, expanding our nuclear arsenal, and beefing up protections for our embassies. These ideas must be adopted if Britain is to reclaim the glory which has been handed away by successive weak governments in the post-War period.

[Bibi Lauria (CON)]

As Mr Hart will remember - I was the first MP in the last cabinet to raise the question of representation for the Falklands and Gibraltar in Parliament. I'm happy to see that he at least thinks that idea of mine is "conservative" enough for him to nick.

[Ruth Murphy (LAB)]

At this point, the Labour Party has raised concerns we do not have the military capability to sufficiently defend the Falklands while we are engaged in Iraq. The Liberal Democrats have raised the same concerns. So have the Referendum Party. Even Conservative backbenchers have. The government must do more to reassure us this is not the case.

When questioned on this by myself, the government has stated it does not believe this is the case which I take in good faith. But I am concerned that after the incident in the Falklands today regarding two Argentine destroyers, the Argentines still appear to be taking an aggressive stance. I sincerely hope it is not the case that this continued boldness is not the result of them knowing something we don't.

[Alex Cardigan MP (LD)]

The Falkland Islands are British and it is our sovereign right to do what we wish within our own waters. This is not a question of principle, though, as a debate - it is a question of practicality. There is enormous and righteous cross-party concern about our own military capabilities here, this will not be a repeat of the victory of 1982 if the situation escalates. We have taken the time to propose a serious defence review, propose serious changes to make our armed forces at sea, in the air, and on and stronger. Had our considerations been even acknowledged, instead of kicking defence into the long grass as an afterthought, we wouldn't be in this situation. The Government have made a botch of this, and we need a cross-party, expert-led "War Cabinet" to have oversight of the crisis.

[David Williams (CON)]

The Referendum Party have demonstrated that they haven't got a clue what's going on in the South Atlantic. Disgraced former Deputy Prime Minister and new convert to the Referendum cause, Mr. Recks, would be comically out of touch if he were not speaking from a position of authority and influence over the national conversation. To be so incredibly wrong, in point of fact, as to say that British government withdrew its diplomatic staff from Argentina is to demonstrate just how out of the loop he really is and how little the British people can trust him to make a coherent, cogent point. It would seem that, upon dawning a light pink rosette, one's brains turn to mush.

---

The Referendum Party have demonstrated that they haven't got a clue what's going on in the South Atlantic. Disgraced former Deputy Prime Minister and new convert to the Referendum cause, Mr. Recks, would be comically out of touch if he were not speaking from a position of authority and influence over the national conversation. To be so incredibly wrong, in point of fact, as to say that British government withdrew its diplomatic staff from Argentina is to demonstrate just how out of the loop he really is and how little the British people can trust him to make a coherent, cogent point. It would seem that, upon dawning a light pink rosette, one's brains turn to mush.

(That should be Mr. Hart.)

[Quinn Shaw (LAB)]

The Foreign Secretary, both in Parliament and before the press, has alluded to the inevitability of our Ambassador leaving his embassy in Buenos Aires. The fact of the matter is that the Ambassador had every right to remain in the Argentine capital. It was a political decision, made from a place of weakness, to allow the Ambassadorial staff to leave. While the Tories have cowered in Whitehall, I have called for strengthening our defenses at all of our embassies, including providing military protection where necessary. 

[David Williams (CON)]

There seems to be an incredible amount of confusion among a number of elements of our political class in Britain about the current and ongoing situation in the South Atlantic. To begin with, we are not, at this time, at war with the Argentinians; the situation is tense and there have been military maneuvers by both parties-- in our case, defensive and in theirs offensive--but there is, as yet, no declaration of war. This is important because it frames the entire discussion. Britain is not, nor has it ever been, interested in pursuing war with Argentina. We wish, simply, to be left to pursue our interests in what is our sovereign territory. Our military action in the region has been undertaken solely to prevent the bellicose Argentinians from causing harm to our sovereign territory and our people.

Secondly, the British ambassador to Argentina was expelled by the Argentinian government, and there is nothing more that can be done about that until and unless the Argentinian government is prepared to allow him to return. The claims to the contrary, proposed by Mr. Hart and the Referendum Party, are ludicrous and only serve to highlight how little they understand of the complex world of geopolitics. Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of both parties: their national government and the government of the country to which they make representations. When the latter chooses to expel an ambassador, then he must leave both for his own protection and for the maintenance of law and order. To have kept the British ambassador in Argentina would have been unnecessarily provocative and put the lives of our diplomatic staff in danger. This would represent the height of irresponsibility, especially when the Swiss government has offered to provide consular services to the limited number of British foreign nationals in Argentina.

The final point which must be addressed and clarified is the myth that our forces in the South Atlantic are not set up or prepared to engage and beat the Argentine military. This is completely false. Our military in the area is in a strong position, and plans exist should there be a need to engage with the Argentine mainland. In addition to our forces, there is an ongoing offer of assistance from our allies in NATO and in the OAS which further increases our strength. If the Argentinian government, whoever is running it today, is interested in increasing the hostilities against our boys in the Falklands, then we are more than prepared to neutralize the threat. Britain has a world class military; and the quality and strength of that is on full show in the South Atlantic.

I hope that this clarifies, for everyone's benefit, the situation as it is ongoing and can lend some important facts to the ongoing discussion.