Anthony Webber responds to Petitions committee:
I have read the government response (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/617939?reveal_response=yes) which has been kindly sent to me regarding petition:
I ask the Petitions Committee to request the government to improve on its response.
The reasons are as follows:
1.) The petition clearly states that “The Government is involving the UK in a foreign conflict, supporting one nation against another nation, without a mandate from the electorate.”
The Government has not responded to this specific and fundamental point about a mandate.
2.) The petition clearly states: “We believe it is in British interests to be neutral on the Ukraine/Russia conflict, and not support Ukraine or take any action against Russia, including sanctions.”
The Government has not said why it is in British interests to take the actions they have taken, nor what British interests are served by taking one side against another in this conflict.
The only point the Government have made is that they maintain that they “cannot be neutral about this egregious violation of international law.” This is their own perception and there is another point of view. It is also a hypocritical point of view because there has been an “egregious violation of international law” by the Taliban in Afghanistan, yet the UK is not helping militarily or otherwise the anti-Taliban resistance who are headed by the legal Vice President, now de facto President. In contrast, the Afghan involvement by the UK protected human rights, women’s rights, democracy, and free media, and only cost the UK taxpayer a £1bn a year.
The Ukraine involvement has cost over £8bn for arms and aid in just eight months and the Government have not been up to date and accurate in their response on the costs to the taxpayer of their unmandated involvement.
3.) The petition clearly states: “Stopping British military support in Ukraine will save the UK taxpayer over a billion pounds and could help stop escalating the conflict.”
( Since the petition started, the figure has risen to over £8bn and rising, but we have been advised that the petition cannot be amended to reflect the up-to-date situation).
The Government do not deny large sums of UK money have been spent on Ukraine and that such aid will continue, but they avoid the issue of them having no mandate for their actions in their response.
They also avoid saying why they have solely intervened in Ukraine, but not in many other countries in the world where there has been “egregious violation of international law.”
It smacks of double standards and of supporting global corporate vested interests which the Government is not being open and transparent about.
The Government is also avoiding the issue of the major part they continue to take in escalating this conflict.
It was reported that in April of this year the President Zelensky government were ready to sign a peace agreement with Russia, but they were persuaded to change their minds due to a visit by then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson with the offer of billions of pounds worth of arms and aid.
It is a fact that without the military and other aid by countries such as the UK and the USA, the Ukraine government would have come to an agreement with Russia, months ago, probably in line with the principles of the Minsk accord.
The Government has simply given an opinion that the supply of arms has helped the Ukrainian government, but they cannot deny that they have escalated the conflict.
4.) The petition clearly states: “We believe the British government should focus on peace-making, without taking a side in the conflict. This could better help end the refugee crisis than current policy and help deescalate the world energy and food situation.”
The Government has made it clear in its response that its objectives are to put the Ukraine government in a better position militarily to try to improve their negotiating position. This approach is not “peace-making without taking sides in the conflict,” which is what the petition states. The petition makes it clear that the Government has no mandate to take any side, whether that of Ukraine or Russia.
The Government response does not explain how escalating and prolonging the conflict is going to help the refugee crisis, which will continue to worsen as more of Ukraine’s infrastructure is damaged or destroyed.
The Government response did not say how they could engage as peace makers, which is what the petitioners are seeking. The UK, Ukraine and Russia are mainly Christian countries and Jesus Christ said, “Blessed are the peace makers.” Indeed, if in the past the communist Soviet Union and NATO countries could successfully bring about peace, then it should be much easier to help bring about peace between Ukraine and Russia.
The Government did not respond on how their policy would “help deescalate the world energy and food situation,” as stated in the petition. It is obvious that the longer the conflict continues, the more the world energy and food situation will escalate.
The Government maintain that it is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that have caused global energy and food price rises.
However, the Government has avoided the part they played in discouraging peace, and it is clear there was plenty of opportunity to avoid the conflict prior to it commencing.
The Government has claimed that food, energy, and other price rises are caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and that “claims that they are caused by Western sanctions are false, and intentional Russian disinformation.”
This claim by the Government needs to be evidenced by proof, as it clear that the many countries not sanctioning Russia are in a far better position economically than those who are.
The Government needs to show evidence as to why the UK’s economic position would not improve if the UK became neutral, ended sanctions, and engaged in trade negotiations with Russia ( as other countries have done).
Petitioners are entitled to honesty, openness, and transparency, when the Government responds to petitions, and in this case that has been lacking and needs to be addressed.
The Government response is not one of dealing with the points made in the petition, but one coming across as propaganda attempting to justify their unauthorised foreign proxy war in Ukraine.
All the points made are one sided and the petitioners are entitled to accurate responses rather than opinions.
For example, the Government response mentioned the UN General Assembly vote but failed to mention the countries which abstained.
It also failed to mention the large number of countries either not sanctioning Russia at all, or just having some sanctions, which involves seven eighths of the world’s population. Hardly most world countries taking the view of the UK government, because they are putting the needs of their own countries first.
The Government response accused “Russia of blockading Ukrainian grain exports through a cynical blockade,” which we understand has ended. This response also underlined the naivety of the Government on the consequences of encouraging the continuance of conflict.
Clearly in such a situation both sides are going to take actions which benefit their cause. More reason for swiftly ending the conflict.
The Government response referred to Russian attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine, yet failed to mention the Ukraine attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine ( now mainly part of Russia following the five referenda on the issue).
The Government response states that “there is no indication that Putin is serious about peace negotiation.”
In contrast there is every indication from the Government’s public comments, that they are not serious about peace negotiation.
The Russian government have made their position abundantly clear what they seek, whereas the UK government has not except that whatever the demands of President Zelensky seem to have priority over the needs of the British and indeed world public.
The Government stated their stance was one of proudly standing “against Russian naked aggression – and for freedom, democracy, and sovereignty around the world.”
What the Government did not say was that there is no real freedom and democracy in the Ukraine of President Zelensky, as opposition political parties and media are banned.
Also, the “sovereignty” of the five countries who voted by democratic referenda to leave Ukraine and join Russia has not been recognised by the UK.
Just what principles represented by the President Zelensky government merit the economic suffering of the British public, but also that of the Ukrainian people?
The Government in its response stated that they were taking action to help British businesses and consumers to cope with rising energy costs.
However, they did not state how much this assistance would cost the British taxpayers, nor did they state it was insufficient help to cope with the rising cost of living, not did they say there were going to have to be tax rises and reductions in funding for local and national services, not did they say that this situation is simply untenable unless the Ukraine policies are ended.
The Government in their response make it clear that they hope the Ukraine military will have success in defeating the Russians in parts of Ukraine which have voted to become part of Russia. This is totally unrealistic to expect young Ukrainians to fight for such a cause. Ukrainians have had to put up with compulsory conscription and perhaps it is time for the Ukraine to have a referendum on ending the conflict.
The Government response makes much use of terminology such as “Russian aggression,” but if Russia had wanted a full blow war against Ukraine, they would have made such efforts. The Russian objectives are limited as explained by their government.
The difference between the Government and the petitioners is that the former take sides and the latter don’t.
The petitioners seek what is in British and indeed world interests and for the public to make the decision about the UK becoming neutral in the Ukraine/Russia conflict.
This leads onto to the wording of the Petition itself:
5.)“Referendum on whether the UK should be neutral in the Ukraine/Russia conflict:”
“The Government, as a matter of urgency, to hold a UK-wide referendum on the subject within a maximum of six months.”
The Government in its response, has completely ignored the main part of this petition !
It is disrespectful to those who signed the petition, and it undermines the Parliamentary petitions process to not bother to respond on the essential point of the petition.
This is that the Government has no mandate whatsoever for their Ukraine/Russian policies, which have proved to be so damaging to the people of the UK.
Such a mandate was not obtained at the last General Election and cannot be obtained at the next one because the Opposition parties support the Government’s Ukraine/Russia policies. Thus, it is a classic cross party, non-party issue which can only be resolved by a Referendum.
Thank you for your consideration of the above and I hope you can obtain another response from the Government which covers the points made as above.
With kind regards
Anthony
Anthony Webber
Main Petitioner and Chair of Ukraine Peace/Not War Referendum Committee
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.
