The Government states that European Union membership is in the national interest. UKIP disagrees. Might not MI5, applying logic, therefore say it should put a tail on UKIP's wilder elements?Now nobody is going to deny that all parties have 'wilder elements' and UKIP is not immune, however that would not excuse MI5 interest. Indeed keeping tabs on the wilder one would be pointless. Listening in to some of UKIP's finest over a pint of Old Kneecracker down the King's Head planing to make a latter day reprise of Guy Fawkes seems to me to be a waste of resources, particularly in these times of a homegrown islamacist threat. Surely other more valid and sensible threats exist? Farage for example, cripes even myself (not regarding myself as 'wild' in the slightest. Lord Pearson, who occaisioned this article would no doubt be the the perfect target and is an obvious revolutionary. Here is the question,
"6 July 2009 : Column WA118And here the answer,
UK Independence Party
Questions
Asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord West of Spithead on 10 June (WA 151), whether the Security Service has been or is active inside or towards the United Kingdom Independence Party or any of its members. [HL4590]
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord West of Spithead on 10 June (WA 151), whether the security services or the police have collaborated or are collaborating with the European Anti-Fraud Office or any other organ of the European Union in relation to the United Kingdom Independence Party or any of its members. [HL4591]
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Security Service has investigated or is engaged with the United Kingdom Independence Party. [HL4592]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): The established policy of successive Governments is not to comment on questionsabout Security Service investigations.Of course thisis not the first time that these questions have been asked, back in 2001 Lord Tebbit posed similar questions in a Spectator article that seems to have dissapeared, though not references to it.
The Security Service Act 1989 sets out its functions and prohibits it doing anything in furtherance of the interests of a political party. It does not investigate anyone for being a member of a campaigning organisation.
Police operations are a matter for the relevant chief officer who is under no duty to report such matters to the Government.
The point is, as lets makes clear, MI5 works in the 'national interest' as defined by HMG. EU membership is in the national interest accordng to HMG, UKIP is a political party, not a 'campaigning organisation', and denying that MI5 works to further "the interests of a political party" seems frankly bizzare, as that should be so self evident as to be redundent.
Lord West's answer therefore raises far more questions than I am personally comfortable with.
3 comments:
"The point is, as lets makes clear, MI5 works in the 'national interest' as defined by HMG."
The political naivete behind this article is stunning.
Anyone with the least insight into British (indeed, any) governmental institutions is well aware that Security Service works for ITS OWN interests. A close attention to recent history will indicate this amply. Most other intelligence arms closed down after WW2 - SS and SIS slipped seamlessly from addressing the German Menace to the Russian Menace.
As the 1980s developed this became a little backwater, culminating in catastrophe when the Berlin Wall went and there was no enemy any more. As the Treasury nosed around for savings, the spooks frantically claimed they were going to do Drug Barons, Organised Crime, anything to justify their existence. They took over IT Security from CCTA, and started to build a 'National Infrastructure' body like the Homeland Security of the US.
These are NOT 'necessary defences'. They are budget justifying exercises.
Have you wondered why we reacted so badly to 9/11? Almost as if we wanted to cause instability and an increased threat? The end of the Cold War not only threatened the intelligence community, it threatened the whole military-industrial complex. There would have been a lot of voices supporting the establishment of a new threat.
At the moment SS are still raw from the 1990s experience. They are expanding as fast as they can, and taking in whole new areas of responsibility in an effort never to get caught that way again. The one thing they do NOT do is work selflessly for 'the national interest', whoever defines it...
Malcolm Wood once told me a story about being at a UKIP-organised Tory Conference fringe meeting attended by tebbit. Apparently the old warhorse wryly nudged him and told him to watch out because one of the UKIP chappies setting up chairs/equipment etc was most definitely a member of Six that he remembered from back in the day...
Of course they are inside UKIP, though I tend to think you will find far more of them inside the BNP on the Old Guard side, keeping them as unacceptable as possible. I mean Lee Barnes *must* be a provocateur, no one outside of Finsbury mosque is really that mental.
"...prohibits it doing anything in furtherance of the interests of a political party"
That does not deny that it acts against the interests of a political party nor within it.
Post a Comment