By Anthony Webber:
A Parliamentary Petition which successfully obtained far more than the 10,000 signatures (which require the government to give a response), has, not surprisingly, received an inadequate reply from them.
The Petitioners have therefore written to the Parliamentary Petitions Committee pointing out that the government have evaded responding on crucial parts of the Petition and that a full response needs to be obtained.
At the time of writing, it is not known what will happen, but this has happened before, and the Petitions Committee then insisted that the government provide a response dealing with all aspects of the Petition.
A number of “freedom” media outlets, organisations and individuals helped promote this Petition, and a big thank you for what they did.
This has been the most no platformed and shadow banned Petition ever, and to get this Petition over the line when the establishment was doing everything they could to prevent people being aware of it, was a supreme achievement indeed.
These Petition efforts are all part of a campaign to end the government’s Ukraine and Russia policies.
This has included a number of NotOurWar protests with speakers as far and wide as London Whitehall and Edinburgh Holyrood.
Slowly but surely, we break through the wall of government deceit and destruction of our country as we take forward the fight for true freedom.
The up-to-date email correspondence with the House of Commons Petitions Committee is mentioned here below to read.
Please note how evasive the government have been and the pressing questions which are put to demand answers on.
Anthony Webber Independent Political Commentator
From: anthonywebber@cwgsy.net <anthonywebber@cwgsy.net>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2023 3:21 PM
To: ‘HOC Petitions Committee’ <petitionscommittee@parliament.uk>; ‘HoC Petitions Team’ <petitionsteam@parliament.uk>
Subject: Government response to Ukraine/Russia Petition totally inadequate
Dear Ed
For the kind attention of the Petitions Committee
Thank you for sending me the government’s response to the Petition as mentioned further on in this email.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/629895
I am disappointed with this response as it does not answer some of the key points in the petition.
I had a previous Petition on the subject of the Ukraine/Russia conflict over six months ago with a similar problem:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/617939
and the Petitions Committee kindly asked the government for a further response which was given.
I recently wrote to the Committee asking if consideration could be given to granting a Parliamentary debate on this Petition or on both this and previous one.
It strikes me that there are more reasons now to have a debate, as the government is being so evasive on this issue.
I ask for the Petitions Committee to ask the government to fully and properly respond to this latest Petition and I have provided comments on where the government response is unsatisfactory as below:
UK Government and ParliClosed petitionReferendum on ending government’s economically costly Ukraine/Russia policies
The government, unless they change their policies, (including ending economically self-defeating sanctions against Russia (causing energy price rises) and sending billions in arms to Ukraine, instead becoming neutral peacemakers), to hold a UK wide referendum on the subject within six months maximum
More details
The government have intervened on one side in the Ukraine conflict, without any mandate from UK citizens, who have had to suffer massive economic consequences.
These include increased energy, cost of living, interest rate, inflation, unemployment, tax and rates rises, plus strikes, business damage, and reduced government services.
Taxpayers paid £100bn Energy price support and £10bn Ukraine military and other aid to date.
Striving for peace would help end the bloodshed, restore stability and deescalate the world energy, food and refugee situation.
This petition is closedAll petitions run for 6 months
13,773 signatures
100,000
Government responded
This response was given on 13 July 2023
Russia’s attempts to destroy Ukraine threaten security and prosperity across the world. Three-quarters of UN members condemned Russia’s invasion. The Government does not support holding a referendum.
This is purely a government opinion, “Russia’s attempts to destroy Ukraine threaten security and prosperity across the world.” It is not a view of the majority of world nations, is not evidenced by the facts of what is happening on the ground, and takes no account of Russia’s publicly stated objectives of its “special military operation.”
The fact that three quarters of UN members condemned Russia’s invasion is irrelevant to what the Petition is about. There are many UN resolutions which condemn the actions of other countries. They only have relevance to this Petition if they take action, such as engage in sanctions against Russia, or provide military aid to Ukraine.
The majority of world countries do not sanction Russia, and they have about 80% of the world’s population. Even with the minority of world countries which sanction Russia, there are many examples of exempting themselves when it is in their national interest to do so.
There is a similar position with the provision of military aid, with a minority of world countries giving such aid to Ukraine.
This opinion of the government which they put into action-based policies, is a key part of the petition, because there is no mandate for it.
The government has not responded on the issue of the fact that they have no mandate for their Ukraine and Russia policies whatsoever.
They have also given no reason why they do not support having a referendum on this issue to seek to obtain a mandate or otherwise.
Referenda are a means of providing democratic mandate for policies which are very important in their own right, and should not be based on General Election results, where political parties are offering the voter a range of other policies as well.
There is also the point that many consider China a threat to world “security,” being a Communist country which is rapidly increasing its military and economic influence globally.
Yet the UK does not sanction China “until it withdraws its troops from Tibet”( which it invaded in the 1950’s), because it perceives that doing so oud harm its economic interests.
The government must end its double standards and hypocrisy.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was unjustified and unprovoked and is the most egregious violation of international law and the UN Charter since World War Two. As a sovereign state, Ukraine has the right to determine its own future and we stand with our Ukrainian friends as they fight for their survival. Peace is achievable in 24 hours; Russia could end the war tomorrow by withdrawing its troops from Ukraine.
This is another opinion of the government. There is another point of view, shared by many nations, that the invasion could have been avoided if there had not been provoking by certain countries such as the USA and the UK, and there had been a preparedness by certain nations to understand the security concerns of Russia, and the need to abide by agreements such as the Minsk one. This is an important subject with a history going back to 2014 and before that. There should certainly be discussion of such issues. Russia has stated its own position that it has not broken international law.
Ukraine has the right to determine its future and indeed it was due to agree to a peace deal with Russia a year ago last April. This was scuppered by the offering of extensive military and other aid by the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. This action had nil UK public mandate. Ukraine would not last out without military and other aid. In fact Ukraine has effectively been sold out to the Black Rock hedge fund by President Zelensky. There is a growing movement for peace in Ukraine, yet the elections have been postponed until the conflict is over. As other countries have held elections during times of conflict, this effectively has put a small group of people associated with President Zelensky in autocratic control of the country. This has been worsened by the banning of some opposition parties and the ending of some opposition media, and even the shutting down of a major Russian Orthodox Church. Approximately 10 million Ukrainians have left the country, with nearly 3 million in Russia and upwards of 240,000 in the UK ( costing the UK taxpayer about £2bn a year). The refugee situation was negligible prior to Boris Jonson’s intervention, so his actions have had many consequences.
It is true that peace is achievable in 24 hours, but the government’s stance that it should be by Russia withdrawing its troops from Ukraine is totally unrealistic and out of date.
There have already been referenda in the five parts of Ukraine which have voted to become part of Russia, and these mainly Russian speaking people are unlikely to change their minds. What would achieve peace in 24 hours would be the UK stopping military aid to Ukraine and offering to act as a peacemaker.
As the Prime Minister set out in the Integrated Review Refresh 2023, support for Ukraine is not just about our values. We are acting because Ukraine’s security is all of our security. Our immediate and most urgent priority is supporting the self-defence and restoration of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, invasion and occupation of Crimea, threats to the UK homeland and attempts to destroy Ukraine are assaults on European security.
To state that Ukraine’s security is all of our security is an opinion which is not backed up by fact. There never was a defence treaty with Ukraine and there is no strategic UK interest in Ukraine either. There are no attempts to destroy Ukraine. If that was the case Russia has the capability to wage wholescale conventional war against Ukraine, causing massive damage, but has not done so. In fact, civilian casualties are low, massively so compared with civilian casualties in countries such as Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, to name just a few. Russia has stated what its objectives in Ukraine are. There is no threat to European security either and never has been. Any threats to the UK homeland have to be seen in the context of some of our own politician’s threats and actions against Russia. It is a time for cooling off of such comments,and for mature diplomacy and for peace making by all concerned.
There is broad international support for the UK’s position. Russia’s illegal act of aggression against a sovereign state was condemned by three-quarters of UN members (143 votes for and 5 against at UNGA’ 23 February 2023). It is therefore in the UK’s national security and economic interests to support Ukraine to defeat Russia’s war of aggression. That is why total UK military, humanitarian and economic support committed to Ukraine since the invasion now amounts to over £9.3 billion. Of this, £347 million of UK humanitarian assistance has helped the Ukrainian Government, the UN, NGOs and Red Cross to reach 15.8 million vulnerable people in need in Ukraine and the surrounding region.
As previously stated, it is current actions of UN members which are of relevance, and there is only minority support for sanctions and for military aid. If the UK had striven for peace instead of engaging in a proxy war, well over £9bn would have been available for other very needed purposes in the UK.
UK support aims to support Ukraine to achieve a fair and lasting peace as quickly as possible. The quickest path to peace is Putin’s withdrawal from Ukraine. President Zelenskyy indicated his readiness for negotiations in a Ten Point Peace Formula at the November G20 summit, in line with the UN Charter. We will continue to engage with the Government of Ukraine and partners to discuss how the war can be brought to a just and sustainable end. No-one wants peace more than the Ukrainians. However, it is only by going into peace negotiations from a position of military, economic and diplomatic strength that Ukraine will secure a strong and lasting peace.
This is yet another opinion which is totally unrealistic and based on the false theory that only war brings about peace. If that is the case, why did the government abandon Afghanistan by doing a “deal” with the Taliban, who had never won a major battle against us? At least the UK’s involvement there was an honourable one of defending freedom, democracy, human and women’s rights and women’s education. This cost us just £1bn a year, a tenth of the cost of the Ukraine conflict, and no economic consequences.
What exactly are Ukrainians fighting for, now their country has been sold out to the globalist financiers?
If peace is not brought about soon, Ukraine will become in a worse negotiating position, with more lost land, and even more than the 400,000 military deaths already suffered.
It has all been so pointless and unnecessary and the UK government has sadly much blood on its hands for prolonging this conflict.
The Government is committed to exploring all legal routes with regard to using frozen Russian assets for use for the reconstruction of Ukraine. To demonstrate our commitment to this agenda, we laid legislation on 19 June this year to enable us to keep sanctions in place until Russia pays compensation.
This response is unrealistic and counterproductive. The regions of the country which have voted to become part of Russia are already being reconstructed. It would be better to engage with Russia on this whole issue. Trying to “steal” the assets of another country is hardly likely to bring about accord and agreement. In fact, it will cause reputational damage to the UK, as foreign nationals and foreign countries will feel their assets are not safe in the UK or its Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies and will place them elsewhere. Russia is hardly likely to pay any compensation when they are winning this conflict and not being unduly affected by the sanctions. There needs to be consideration of the possibility that a new Ukraine government of the future may demand prosecution of their former politicians and certain other countries for prolonging the war and causing more devastation. Or Russia could make renewing economic trading with them not very advantageous to us. In fact,the sanctions policies have been a failure and counter productive. This is another aspect of he Petition which the government have avoided answering.
Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine has contributed to a surge in energy prices, driving high inflation across the world. Central banks are raising interest rates to get inflation under control, which has pushed up the cost of borrowing for families, businesses and governments.
This is yet again avoiding answering one of the points made in the petition. The surge in energy prices is due, not to the war in Ukraine, but to the government’s policies in relation to Ukraine and Russia. A simple check of energy prices of those countries which don’t apply sanctions against Russia and those which do, shows major energy price differences. Several countries have arranged energy deals with Russia and have benefited from much lower energy costs.
If the government believes the public are prepared to make major energy and cost of living rises sacrifices, then the public should approve or not approve of this in a referendum.
These policies are having effects across the whole UK economy, including interest rate and inflation rises. In a democratic society the people should have the final say on the decision on this very important issue.
The government has also ignored responding and providing on the full and total costs consequences on the UK economy and the British public of their Ukraine and Russia policies.
The Petition referred to energy price support of £100bn provided of taxpayers’ money, which will not be able to be used for other purposes. The amount given by the taxpayer for energy price support is greatly in excess of that now, but the government have not given that information. They have not given future predicted costs in all respects, and this was one of the main purposes of the Petition. The Petitioners believe that the costs of the government’s Ukraine and Russia policies are simply untenable, and that is so serious as to justify a referendum if the government don’t change their policies.
We are working closely with our international partners to mitigate the wider impacts of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and tackle global food insecurity. This includes working to keep exports of Ukrainian grain and other foodstuffs flowing through the UN Black Sea Grain Initiative. We shall prioritise the UK’s future economic security in its response. The immediate economic costs are lower than long-term instability in Europe.
This part of the response is also dishonest. The supply of grain through the UN Black Sea Grain Initiative is completely dependent on Russia’s goodwill.
Therefore, it is in the UK’s interests to have improved relations with Russia
Concerns about global food insecurity can be lessened by a more peaceful and pragmatic approach.
The risk of long term economic instability in Europe can be alleviated by ending the government’s policies on Ukraine and Russia, not by continuing with them.
Any instability in Europe is entirely of the making of the EU and some NATO countries.
None of them have any mandate from their citizens about these policies.
These policies of the UK government have been an almighty blunder and not considered the economic and other consequences on the UK and its people.
In a proper democratic society, the people would decide on them through a referendum.
It is this, too, that the government have not answered the petition fully on- why they believe that on such important policies which they have no mandate on that they should deny the people a referendum on.
As the Prime Minister and G7 Leaders set out in their statement in Hiroshima in May this year, we will continue to provide the financial, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support Ukraine requires for as long as it takes.
This again is not responding to what the petition is about. The Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made commitments to “support Ukraine for as long as it takes.” Where is his mandate for this? This is an excessively costly to the taxpayer both directly and with indirect economic and foreign policy consequences.
Did the government say they would support Afghanistan as long as it takes? Such double standards and hypocrisy require explaining.
On the basis set out above, the UK Government does not support holding a referendum on the UK’s policies towards Russia and Ukraine. The Government is strongly committed to supporting Ukraine and holding Russia to account for its illegal invasion.
In conclusion, the government is not adhering to being open, honest and transparent, and these responses demonstrate that.
It is important for the government to be truthful to those it serves and so far trust has yet to be gained, especially on these Ukraine and Russia policies of theirs.
It is important therefore, for the government to detail the full economic costs and consequences in all areas so far and what they are predicted to be for at least the next year.
Also, how much Income and other taxes ( including domestic and business rates) have gone up because of these policies, and how many local and national government services have to be reduced because of them, and all other effects such as less money for public sector pay rises and investment in UK wide infrastructure and not forgetting the NHS and well overdue Care for the Elderly
I therefor ask for a full response as soon as possible from the government.
This is also so important for the important role of Parliamentary Petitions to have full value and respect as part of our democratic system of government.
Signed
Anthony Webber
Main Petitioner
Opinions from the Unity News Network (UNN) editorial team & various contributors. | UNN always clearly distinguishes between news and opinion pieces and as an open minded outlet we publish views from a variety of people and organisation that do not necessarily reflect the views of UNN or its writers. Articles published under UNN Opinions are always opinion pieces and if published on behalf of a contributor will contain that authors name at the start of the piece.
