News roundup, video and photos

Posted on 2017-05-15 | 10:30

When there was a vote in Parliament to commit up to £100 billion on renewing Britain’s Trident Nuclear Missile system Roger voted against - and he explains why.

“There are 2 arguments put forward for why the UK has a so-called independent nuclear weapons deterrent. Both are myths.

The first myth is tat the system is ‘independent’. The UK has 4 nuclear submarines. Each can carry up to 8 missiles and each missile can carry up to 5 nuclear warheads. The UK does not own the missiles. It leases them from America where they are made, maintained and tested. Our 4 submarines have to go to the American naval base in Georgia to have the missiles fitted. Therefore our nuclear deterrent is totally dependent on America.

The second myth is that the UK would lose its seat on the United Nations Security Council if it did not have nuclear weapons. This really is nonsense. When the United Nations was set up in 1945 the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, who have a veto, were the victors of the Second World War. Of the 5 countries only America had nuclear weapons. To suggest that a country has to have nuclear weapons in order to be a member of the Security Council is totally untrue.

This country, like other developed countries, does face threats to its security – from rogue states, international terrorist groups and from groups within our society who want to destroy it. These threats internationally are best met by our membership of NATO. America, with its nuclear arsenal, was a founding member, and it has been the most successful mutual defence pact in history keeping the peace of Europe for over 50 years. The cornerstone of the NATO pact is that an attack on any member is an attack on all.

Furthermore the only way of dealing with threats from domestic terrorist groups is to be continually vigilant and to make sure our police and internal security organisations are properly funded to disrupt their activities. This happened some years ago in White Street, Sparkbrook, where a terrorist cell planning to set off bombs in central Birmingham was monitored and the premises raided before any atrocity was carried out. The individuals involved were all convicted and received long prison sentences.

Committing £100 billion to renew our nuclear deterrent is ridiculous at a time of austerity when so many of our services, including conventional defence forces, are being dramatically cut. This is why I voted against renewal.”

Posted on 2017-05-15 | 10:33

This is what Roger says about the future of the United Kingdom.

“I welcomed the decision of the Scottish people to reject independence and to stay as part of the United Kingdom. But be under no illusion the result is going to mean big changes in the way the United Kingdom is run. The Scottish Parliament has been given more devolved powers including greater powers to raise taxes. The Welsh Assembly must be given the same powers and the same powers must also be given to the Northern Ireland Assembly because the people of Wales and Northern Ireland cannot be treated differently.

I believe there is going to be an increasing demand for the creation of an English Parliament which would have the same devolved powers – and I will support this demand. The United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster will then deal with all residual matters such as Foreign Affairs, Defence, Taxation and Trade policy affecting the UK as a whole – and the number of MPs will be dramatically reduced.

Scottish rejection of independence, and be under no illusion there will be further Referendums, means there has to be a new Constitutional Settlement and we should welcome these changes because I believe it is what the people want.”

Posted on 2017-05-15 | 10:37

"I am no great fan of referendums and much prefer ‘representative democracy’ but I think that there are occasions when it is right that the direct democracy of a referendum is appropriate.

There was a referendum on whether the UK remained in the Common Market back in 1975 and there was also a referendum on whether there should be a change in the voting system for General Elections during the Coalition Government. There have been further referendums over whether cities should have directly elected Mayors.

David Cameron called the referendum because he thought it would be a way of resolving the on-going problem in the Conservative Party about the EU. However the so-called ‘re-negotiated terms’ were totally irrelevant once the referendum was announced. Because there has not been a proper discussion about the future direction of Europe ever since the 1975 referendum a lot of people felt their views and concerns had been ignored and this, coupled with a backlash against the growing inequality in this country because of the neoliberal economic agenda which has been followed since the mid-1980s, resulted in a big anti-establishment vote.

In a referendum everybody’s vote is of equal value and what issues motivate people when they vote is entirely up to them. I made my position absolutely clear at the beginning of the campaign. This was that, on balance, I believed that the best interests of the UK would be served by us leaving the EU because I believed the EU was a failed project, and incapable of reforming itself, and that trying to create a United States of Europe by stealth was not going to be in the interests of this country or of the other countries of the EU.

I did not seek to impose my views on anyone and I did not campaign in my constituency. I told everyone, including my staff, that they had to make up their own minds as to how they voted.

  In Birmingham six of the ten constituencies voted to ‘leave’ despite the fact that all six MPs campaigned to remain. The four constituencies that voted to remain included my constituency of Hall Green and I made it clear, after the result was announced, that now that ‘representative democracy’ had returned I would not be voting to trigger Article 50 out of respect for the clearly expressed wishes of the majority of voters in my constituency. When Parliament voted on triggering Article 50 I did not vote for the motion.

I fully understand, and respect, the views of those people who passionately believe in the European Union but the referendum vote was clear with a 52% to 48% majority. Almost a million more people voted to leave than remain. While I entirely accept that the referendum was not ‘binding’ I do think, however, that any attempt to undermine the outcome of the referendum, whatever motives people had when voting, could well result in a constitutional crisis. The people of this country made their decision and that decision has to be respected and implemented.

It is up to the Government to achieve the best possible terms for our withdrawal from the EU and the negotiated terms have to be put to Parliament for them to approve or reject. I would also favour having the negotiated terms put to the electorate in a General Election or another referendum.

Posted on 2017-05-15 | 10:40

This is what Roger says about the proposal to build a high speed rail link between London and Birmingham and the north of England.

“The Government is proposing to spend upwards of £32 billion on a new high speed rail project from London to Birmingham, which then goes onto Leeds and Manchester, allegedly saving 30 minutes travelling time from Birmingham and 50 minutes from Manchester. This is madness.

At a time when ordinary people are facing massive reductions in their living standards and watching their community services, such as libraries, nurseries and centres for elderly people, being axed to commit £17 billion - the estimated cost of the line from London to Birmingham - in order to get business people from Birmingham to London 30 minutes quicker is daft. They don’t seem to understand that business people invariably travel first class and use their computers and mobile phones while travelling. They don’t sit looking out of the window!

There are plenty of better transport projects in Birmingham that £17 billion could be spent on. Why not an underground system; or a modern greatly expanded tram system; or improved bus services or new or reopened train lines and stations within and around the city. All of these projects would provide jobs in Birmingham and would benefit everybody – not just a few business people.

HS2 is a vanity project being pushed by vested interests. If it is such a fantastic project then why is it not being financed by private capital or sovereign wealth funds? The answer is that private investors know it is going to cost much more than estimated and that is why the taxpayer has got to pay the bill! ”