Pro-Russia rebels driving a tank through Donetsk today as international tensions increase over access to the MH17 crash site. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

David Cameron: Russia faces tougher sanctions for MH17 crash

The Prime Minister warned President Putin to stop aiding separatists in Ukraine, as responsibility for the MH17 crash was laid at Russia's feet.

The Prime Minister has called for tougher sanctions on Russia, after detailing evidence that pro-Russian separatists were responsible for shooting down flight MH17.

Speaking in the Commons this afternoon, David Cameron demanded a ban on the sale of military wares from the EU to Russia and asset freezes on Putin's “cronies”.

He said that Russia cannot expect to keep enjoying access to European markets, capital, knowledge and technical expertise.

Noting the “reluctance” of some European countries to confront Russia about its involvement in the destabilisation of Ukraine, he said that they “should not need to be reminded of the consequences of turning a blind eye when big countries bully smaller countries.”

"It is time to make our power, influence and resources count," he added.

The Prime Minister confirmed he has spoken with Presidents Obama and Hollande and Chancellor Merkel, as well as the premiers of the Netherlands, Australia, Poland and Malaysia and said: “We're all agreed on what must happen.”

He called on Russia to exert influence on the pro-Russian separatists at the crash site to allow the repatriation of the bodies of the victims, “ensuring they are treated with dignity”. He also demanded uninhibited access for international investigators.

Russia must halt its support of separatists in the Ukraine too. Cameron said: “President Putin must use his influence to ensure an end to the conflict in Ukraine by halting supplies and training for the separatists.”

Pulling no punches, he made clear when the blame should be laid for the "appalling" crash: “The weight of evidence is pointing in one direction. MH17 was shot down by an SA11 missile fired by separatists.”

After paying tribute to the victims, Cameron said: “Alongside sympathy for the victims, there is anger. There is anger that this could happen at all. There is anger that the murder of men, women and children has been compounded by the sickening reports of looting of victims' possessions and interference with the evidence.

“And there is rightly anger that a conflict that could have been curtailed by Moscow has instead been fomented by Moscow.”

He added: “This has to change now.”

Earlier today Tony Blair called for a common EU defence policy in order to stand up to Russian aggression “on its doorstep”.

Giving the Philip Gould memorial lecture on the 20th anniversary of his selection to the Labour leadership, Blair said that Putin must realise that if pro-Russian separatists are proven to be responsible for the “hideous” shooting down of MH17, the Russian leader must “take responsibility.”

The Prime Minister also made a statement about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. He made clear that the current crisis was “triggered by Hamas raining hundreds of rockets" on Israeli cities and reiterated “Israel's right to take proportionate action to defend itself.”

He added, however, that when he spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last night: “I urged him to do everything to avoid civilian casualties and bring the situation to an end.” 

Lucy Fisher writes about politics and is the winner of the Anthony Howard Award 2013. She tweets @LOS_Fisher.

 

Getty
Show Hide image

Find the EU renegotiation demands dull? Me too – but they are important

It's an old trick: smother anything in enough jargon and you can avoid being held accountable for it.

I don’t know about you, but I found the details of Britain’s European Union renegotiation demands quite hard to read. Literally. My eye kept gliding past them, in an endless quest for something more interesting in the paragraph ahead. It was as if the word “subsidiarity” had been smeared in grease. I haven’t felt tedium quite like this since I read The Lord of the Rings and found I slid straight past anything written in italics, reasoning that it was probably another interminable Elvish poem. (“The wind was in his flowing hair/The foam about him shone;/Afar they saw him strong and fair/Go riding like a swan.”)

Anyone who writes about politics encounters this; I call it Subclause Syndrome. Smother anything in enough jargon, whirr enough footnotes into the air, and you have a very effective shield for protecting yourself from accountability – better even than gutting the Freedom of Information laws, although the government seems quite keen on that, too. No wonder so much of our political conversation ends up being about personality: if we can’t hope to master all the technicalities, the next best thing is to trust the person to whom we have delegated that job.

Anyway, after 15 cups of coffee, three ice-bucket challenges and a bottle of poppers I borrowed from a Tory MP, I finally made it through. I didn’t feel much more enlightened, though, because there were notable omissions – no mention, thankfully, of rolling back employment protections – and elsewhere there was a touching faith in the power of adding “language” to official documents.

One thing did stand out, however. For months, we have been told that it is a terrible problem that migrants from Europe are sending child benefit to their families back home. In future, the amount that can be claimed will start at zero and it will reach full whack only after four years of working in Britain. Even better, to reduce the alleged “pull factor” of our generous in-work benefits regime, the child benefit rate will be paid on a ratio calculated according to average wages in the home country.

What a waste of time. At the moment, only £30m in child benefit is sent out of the country each year: quite a large sum if you’re doing a whip round for a retirement gift for a colleague, but basically a rounding error in the Department for Work and Pensions budget.

Only 20,000 workers, and 34,000 children, are involved. And yet, apparently, this makes it worth introducing 28 different rates of child benefit to be administered by the DWP. We are given to understand that Iain Duncan Smith thinks this is barmy – and this is a man optimistic enough about his department’s computer systems to predict in 2013 that 4.46 million people would be claiming Universal Credit by now*.

David Cameron’s renegotiation package was comprised exclusively of what Doctor Who fans call handwavium – a magic substance with no obvious physical attributes, which nonetheless helpfully advances the plot. In this case, the renegotiation covers up the fact that the Prime Minister always wanted to argue to stay in Europe, but needed a handy fig leaf to do so.

Brace yourself for a sentence you might not read again in the New Statesman, but this makes me feel sorry for Chris Grayling. He and other Outers in the cabinet have to wait at least two weeks for Cameron to get the demands signed off; all the while, Cameron can subtly make the case for staying in Europe, while they are bound to keep quiet because of collective responsibility.

When that stricture lifts, the high-ranking Eurosceptics will at last be free to make the case they have been sitting on for years. I have three strong beliefs about what will happen next. First, that everyone confidently predicting a paralysing civil war in the Tory ranks is doing so more in hope than expectation. Some on the left feel that if Labour is going to be divided over Trident, it is only fair that the Tories be split down the middle, too. They forget that power, and patronage, are strong solvents: there has already been much muttering about low-level blackmail from the high command, with MPs warned about the dire influence of disloyalty on their career prospects.

Second, the Europe campaign will feature large doses of both sides solemnly advising the other that they need to make “a positive case”. This will be roundly ignored. The Remain team will run a fear campaign based on job losses, access to the single market and “losing our seat at the table”; Leave will run a fear campaign based on the steady advance of whatever collective noun for migrants sounds just the right side of racist. (Current favourite: “hordes”.)

Third, the number of Britons making a decision based on a complete understanding of the renegotiation, and the future terms of our membership, will be vanishingly small. It is simply impossible to read about subsidiarity for more than an hour without lapsing into a coma.

Yet, funnily enough, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Just as the absurd complexity of policy frees us to talk instead about character, so the onset of Subclause Syndrome in the EU debate will allow us to ask ourselves a more profound, defining question: what kind of country do we want Britain to be? Polling suggests that very few of us see ourselves as “European” rather than Scottish, or British, but are we a country that feels open and looks outwards, or one that thinks this is the best it’s going to get, and we need to protect what we have? That’s more vital than any subclause. l

* For those of you keeping score at home, Universal Credit is now allegedly going to be implemented by 2021. Incidentally, George Osborne has recently discovered that it’s a great source of handwavium; tax credit cuts have been postponed because UC will render such huge savings that they aren’t needed.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle