Tag: Winston Churchill

He then occupied the clan’s lands and distributed the remaining tribal members among his own people. This was not for the purposes of slavery, but a means of incorporating conquered peoples into his own nation. For example, all members had to perform a certain amount of public service. There is also an ever-widening difference between elite technocrats and blue-collar folk, or “deplorables.” Both parties have pursued policies that have aggravated these differences, and often have schemed to employ them for political gain. Politicians should likewise pursue policies that support and strengthen the family, the “first society,” rather than undermining or redefining it. There’s no doubt that Genghis Khan was a brutal man with a bloody legacy. Yet joined to that violence was a shrewd political understanding that enabled him to create one of the greatest empires the world has ever known. Indeed, as long as enemy cities immediately surrendered to the Mongols, the inhabitants saw little change in their way of life. Even the highest mountain had animals that step on it, he warned. Perhaps if American politicians were to embrace this side of the Great Khan, focusing on serving a greater ideal rather than relentless point-scoring, we might achieve the same level of national success, without the horrific bloodshed.

Like the rest of the country, the 2016 EU referendum divided MPs into two tribes - Leave and Remain. MPs are described as rebels one day, for voting against their party leadership, only to become loyalists the next day and vice versa. But for now, here is a guide to the main factions in the Commons: Theresa May loyalists Government ministers, basically - there are just over 100 them out of a total of 316 Tory MPs - and those backbenchers who support Theresa May's Brexit policies, or at least are not willing to vote against them and threaten her leadership. Most Tory MPs fall into this category but it is not enough for Mrs May to be sure of winning key Commons votes, even with the support of the DUP's MPs, who unlike Mrs May backed Leave in the EU referendum. At-a-glance: The UK's four Brexit options Tory hard Brexiteers Sixty Conservative MPs, headed by Jacob Rees-Mogg, are members of the European Research Group - a pro-Brexit lobby, who are against Theresa May's plans for trading arrangements with the EU. Mr Grieve has said he will quit the party if Boris Johnson becomes prime minister, in reaction to a row over the former foreign secretary's comments about the burka. Government survives key Brexit trade vote Cross-party crusaders Conservative MP Anna Soubry, a close ally of Labour's Chuka Umunna in the People's Vote campaign for another EU referendum (see below), has called in the past for the creation of a new centre-ground party. Tory second referendum group Former Education Secretary Justine Greening is the most senior Conservative to have called for a referendum on the final Brexit deal. No 10 rejects Greening's referendum call The Corbynites Loyalty is highly prized by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn - hardly surprising given the number of his own MPs who have tried to oust him - and many of the new intake of Labour MPs, as well as his inner circle, are fully behind his Brexit stance. This is the core of a group who say they are standing up for the millions of Labour supporters who voted to Leave the EU.

“I believe that in the North Atlantic treaty lies the best, if not the only hope of peace.” Not my words, but the words of Lord Hastings Ismay, former military assistant to Winston Churchill and the very first secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato). Since the alliance was created almost 70 years ago, the people of Europe and North America have enjoyed an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity. The second reason we can preserve the transatlantic bond is what is happening in Nato today. After the cold war, when the threat from the Soviet Union receded, the US and Canada gradually reduced their presence in Europe, and European allies cut defence spending. European allies, with the UK in the vanguard, are stepping up, too – spending billions more on defence and taking responsibility for Euro-Atlantic security alongside their North American allies. Two world wars and a cold war have taught us this: together, Europe and North America are stronger, safer and more prosperous. It is also why allies invoked article 5 of the Nato Treaty – our collective defence clause – just hours after the 9/11 attacks, the first and only time in our history. It is – and has always been – in our fundamental interest to stand together on defence. We must continue to work hard to settle our differences – and where differences persist, we must limit any negative impact on our security cooperation. In that broadcast, more than 65 years ago, Ismay also warned that “we must never be complacent” and that “the road may be rough”.

The House of Commons will this week on Tuesday and Wednesday consider whether or not to accept the fundamental amendments made by the House of Lords to the EU withdrawal bill. It may be defeated on the amendment requiring it to “inform Parliament of the steps it has taken to negotiate British participation in a customs union”, but it can live with that, since the amendment does not commit the government actually to remain in the customs union. But the most dangerous amendment, from the government’s point of view, is that proposed by Lord Hailsham, which would require both houses to approve the agreement by 30 November 2018, and to pass an act providing for the implementation of the agreement by 31 January 2019. The amendment would also allow parliament to refuse to accept any agreement. The government’s position is that if the withdrawal agreement is defeated by parliament, then instead of re-negotiation, Britain will exit from the European Union on 29 March 2019 without a deal. The Hailsham amendment, therefore, lights a powder keg that threatens both Britain’s negotiating position with the EU and the survival of the government. But it does draw attention to the fundamental problem facing the government, which is seeking to implement an instruction from the British people in the Brexit referendum to which the majority of MPs and peers are opposed. For the first time in British constitutional history, parliament is passing legislation in which it does not believe. But what has been decided by the people can be undone only by the people. All that parliament can do is to give the people a chance to decide on the deal.