THE TELEGRAPH BLOG: I’m not sure that people have properly grasped the enormity of the BAE–Saudi affair. I mean, look at the language the high court used. The judges dismissed Labour’s contention that British jobs (let alone national security) would be at risk. It was, they said, a clear-cut case of our criminal justice system buckling under pressure from a foreign power. This ought to be such stuff as hauls down governments, pulverises reputations. Yet, after a day of harrumphing, the newspapers moved on.
Why is the nation not more outraged? “We fear for the reputation of the administration of justice if it can be perverted by a threat,” said the judges. “It is not difficult to imagine what they [the Saudis] would think if we attempted to interfere with their criminal justice system.” Quite.
So why are we taking it lying down? Why are people who normally care about British sovereignty not up in arms that we should have thrown ourselves at the feet of foreign despots?
The answer is that the whole affair has been brilliantly spun as a principle versus pragmatism issue. Unless you have been following the case with unusual interest, you will probably have formed the inchoate impression that it one of those questions that pits hard-headed hommes d’affaires against woolly-minded peaceniks. Seeing a coalition of anti-arms trade Guardianistas arrayed on one side, many Tories have unthinkingly lined up on the other.
In fact, the contention that British jobs or British interests were at stake appears wholly groundless. The judges who have picked over the whole sorry business believe that the Saudi Prince Bandar “went into Number Ten and said ‘get it stopped’”. All the bluster about security was, they thought, “a useful pretext”. Falling at the Feet of the Saudis >>> By Daniel Hannan
THE TELEGRAPH BLOG:
Grovelling to Oil Despots Demeans Us All >>> By Daniel Hannan
The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Paperback - UK)
The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Hardback - UK)
