Question 15 at PMQs is the MP for Hexham! Very excited as only the 4th PMQ I have ever managed to secure in 4 years - as it is run on a pure ballot basis. Still working on the question, although there are several options.
Today I am meeting William Hague for an update on Crimea and Ukraine, along with the regular Monday Home Office meeting. We have the Finance Bill going through the Commons enacting the budget on Tuesday when we also have the last day of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill Committee - this has taken up a huge amount of my midweek time this last month and it will be a relief to be free to get back into the Commons.
Wednesday morning there is a debate on the FSA and the Connaught scandal - which I will attend to support Alun Cairns MP, who has secured the short 30 minute debate at 11am. Then after PMQs I will stay for the Opposition Day debate.
Thursday I have a number of constituents coming to Westminster and I will be using the day to try and catch up on your letters, casework and emails. I will also be trying to meet again with Sir David Higgins and the HS2 team.
Update: sadly the Connaught debate has been pulled by the Speaker and will be heard in a few weeks time.
Showing posts with label Crimea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crimea. Show all posts
Monday, 31 March 2014
Tuesday, 25 March 2014
Meeting many of Ukraine's leading politicians tomorrow - is it next on Russia's hit-list?
The Ukrainians are rightly concerned that their country as a whole could be next on Putin's list, now that the effective land grab and annexation of the Crimea has taken place. Sanctions are a good start by the West, in response, but clearly this is a fluid process. My other concern is the small region of Transdneister in Moldovia. The concern is that Putin's new doctrine might extend to incorporating the Russian-speaking region of Transdniester.
A fuller assessment of the story here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10721463/Ukraine-the-next-possible-flashpoints.html
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
Todays Ukraine debate & my question to William Hague - echoes of 1938?
In parliament today we debated Ukraine, amnd sought assurances from the Foreign Secretary that three key things were happening:
- we are doing everything diplomatically to resolve this
- that we are applying more pressure on Russia both to deescalate the situation and discourage it from doing more damage
- and generally seek answers both as to the Russian position, the consequences of their annexation and our options for the weeks ahead. The debate is set out in full below. I asked William Hague the following question:
Guy Opperman (Hexham):
In 1994 Russia and all other key countries signed the Budapest memorandum, which preserved Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the clear breach by Russia of the 1994 memorandum, and how do we avoid reaching a situation in which we all feel the creeping threat of 1938?
The reason why the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is important is this: it is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear-powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. Later, China and France statements of assurance as well. The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996. In short it is clear that Russia is in breach of an internation agreement, and its obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum, and in clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Full debate is here: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/258/
- we are doing everything diplomatically to resolve this
- that we are applying more pressure on Russia both to deescalate the situation and discourage it from doing more damage
- and generally seek answers both as to the Russian position, the consequences of their annexation and our options for the weeks ahead. The debate is set out in full below. I asked William Hague the following question:
Guy Opperman (Hexham):
In 1994 Russia and all other key countries signed the Budapest memorandum, which preserved Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the clear breach by Russia of the 1994 memorandum, and how do we avoid reaching a situation in which we all feel the creeping threat of 1938?
The reason why the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is important is this: it is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear-powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. Later, China and France statements of assurance as well. The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996. In short it is clear that Russia is in breach of an internation agreement, and its obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum, and in clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Full debate is here: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/258/
Monday, 17 March 2014
This Ukraine "referendum" is a farce even by the standards of Putin's Russia
97% of the Crimea voted to split from Ukraine and go back to Mother Russia. But we are right in the EU to reject the findings. This is somethoing dreamt up by Putin, enforced by Putin and seekeing to solve propblems elsewhere that Putin cannot control. History teaches us that when a country has domestic problems at home, particularly economic, it creates a smokescreen elsewhere. Remember the Argentinian Falklands invasion to smokescreen domestic economic woes in Buenos Aires? Similar comments could be made about many other conflicts not least the First World War.
On the ballot paper, voters were asked whether they would like Crimea to rejoin Russia.
A second question asked whether Ukraine should return to its status under the 1992 constitution, which would give the region much greater autonomy.
Crimea is presently an autonomous republic within Ukraine, and transferred from Russia in 1954
It has:
Ethnic Russians - 58.5%
Ethnic Ukrainians - 24.4%
Crimean Tatars - 12.1%
There was no option for those who wanted the constitutional situation to remain unchanged.
As with all referenda it is the question which is key. Hence why the Scottish question is so fair, and the Crimea question so biased.
Last week I met with Ukrainian MP, Andri Shevchenko, in London. He made it clear that Ukrainians see the Crimea as the first step of future Russian agression. Ethnic Tatars, who make up 12% of the population, mostly boycotted the election. Sanctions are going to follow, and we have a debate in the House of Commons and a statement by William Hague tomorrow.
On the ballot paper, voters were asked whether they would like Crimea to rejoin Russia.
A second question asked whether Ukraine should return to its status under the 1992 constitution, which would give the region much greater autonomy.
Crimea is presently an autonomous republic within Ukraine, and transferred from Russia in 1954
It has:
Ethnic Russians - 58.5%
Ethnic Ukrainians - 24.4%
Crimean Tatars - 12.1%
There was no option for those who wanted the constitutional situation to remain unchanged.
As with all referenda it is the question which is key. Hence why the Scottish question is so fair, and the Crimea question so biased.
Last week I met with Ukrainian MP, Andri Shevchenko, in London. He made it clear that Ukrainians see the Crimea as the first step of future Russian agression. Ethnic Tatars, who make up 12% of the population, mostly boycotted the election. Sanctions are going to follow, and we have a debate in the House of Commons and a statement by William Hague tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)