Skip to Content

Mark Sedwill, British civil servant, Wikipedia

UK National Security Advisor tears up the Magna Carta

The UK National Security Advisor, Sir Mark Sedwill was asked by a Whitehall panel about the evidence available implicating Russia in the Skripal affair recently. The Q&A took place after Sir Mark’s speech to the Defence Committee of the UK parliament and provided much insight into how Britain functions today.

Published: May 10, 2018, 7:31 am

    The question to Sedwill: “Do you know who poisoned the Skripals?” To which Sedwill responded: “Not yet.” And despite this glaring lack of information, a huge and devastating campaign against Russia was launched.

    Sedwill served as the United Kingdom’s Ambassador to Afghanistan from 2009 to 2010 and the NATO Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan in 2010.

    He was the Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from 2000 to 2002 in the run-up to and preparations for the 2003 Iraq invasion also based on a false premise.

    Yet Sedwill did not hesitate to issue the following statement in the wake of the mysterious Skripal incident. “I set out the reasons for our clear assessment of Russian responsibility, the measured but clear response we were taking, the wider pattern of malign behaviour into which Salisbury fits, and the importance of a renewed and wider international focus, including from the EU, on the challenge Russia represents to our shared interests and values.”

    Sedwill’s speech to the Defence Committee addressed the application of the UK’s new security doctrine, called the Fusion Doctrine. It sounds like a culinary fad. In cooking the term implies a mixture of cultures, a bit the same as a restaurant that offers a mixed cuisine.

    The new UK doctrine however means no restrictions on ethical or legal limits, and by any means necessary. This is reflected in various British documents. For example, the UK’s National Security Capabilities Review, recently published, states: “ For modern purposes we use the full range of capabilities available to us.”

    In the following section, it also notes: “Many capabilities that can contribute to national security lie outside national security departments.”

    That suggests that the competent departments are in fact incompetent and do not know what to decide regarding national security. It seems surprising to think that law enforcement or intelligence services can not really ensure the safety of the UK.

    The Fusion Doctrine implies that a political choice informs decisions related to an act of deterrence. Such decisions are thus reinforced not by an investigation, but by political expediency. In the past no stone was left unturned to avoid this manner of making difficult choices because of its serious pitfalls.

    Negative PR campaigns currently shape the main thrust of British deterrence. Its adoption has enabled the UK to move with much greater speed in launching devastating international campaigns against a perceived enemy, especially where facts are lacking.

    Sedwill actually acknowledges this. “So we were much faster and acted based on intelligence data, instead of waiting for the [Skripal]investigation to be completed – it is still ongoing.” Naturally such “intelligence data” remains conveniently “classified”.

    He added: “We acted based on an intelligence assessment.” So deterrence is decided not based on any thorough investigation, but on an “assessment”. It means facts are no longer useful in informing action.

    “We demonstrated our initial position to Russia; there were only two explanations. Then as you know the Prime Minister introduced a whole series of measures, and we worked to bring our allies on our side.”

    Sedwill concluded: “That is essentially an example of the Fusion Doctrine.” So it seems that Perfidious Albion has prevailed and it know operates under a new name: Fusion Doctrine.

    Signed and sealed in the year 1215 the Magna Carta has always been viewed as the sole inception of the idea of limiting the power of the ruler through legal rules, confirming it as part of England’s statute law.

    Unlike the principle of legal state, the rule of law is closely linked to justice, separation of powers and legal certainty.

    Aristotle in his Politics submitted this theory of the separation of powers but the most famous version was being suggested by Montesquieu in De L’Espirit des Lois. His arguments indicate that there were three functions of government, Legislative as the law-making body, Executive as the law-applying body and Judiciary as the Law-Enforcing body.

    Since the UK was never invaded and colonized by other countries, the island has never needed a written constitution and this has been most convenient recently.

    Apart from a series of incidents including one where Margaret Thatcher departed from the convention, the convention seemed to be working reasonably well, until now.

    The fusion of powers is the uniqueness of the United Kingdom but there is clearly a need to adopt a US like constitution with Strict Separation of Powers to stop powerful lobbies from entertaining their narrow agendas.

    The British have torn up their famous document, the Magna Carta, with their new venture: First find a goal, then the justification and finally “ get the allies on board”, when facts tend to get in the way.

    Keep ​your language polite​. Readers from many different countries visit and contribute to Free West Media and we must therefore obey the rules in​,​ for example​, ​Germany. Illegal content will be deleted.

    If you have been approved to post comments without preview from FWM, you are responsible for violation​s​ of​ any​ law. This means that FWM may be forced to cooperate with authorities in a possible crime investigation.

    If your comments are subject to preview ​by FWM, please be patient. We continually review comments but depending on the time of day it can take up to several hours before your comment is reviewed.

    We reserve the right to del​ete​ comments that are offensive, contain slander or foul language, or are irrelevant to the discussion.

    • Dave S

      We haven’t torn it up, we have a constitution in the form of a series of constitutional acts, the magna carta, the bill of rights, but we are under occupation by a foreign power who do not respect our laws. Having them written down a second time would not change this.

      In 2002 in the case of Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, Lord Justice Laws reaffirmed that constitutional acts are not subject to the doctrine of implied repeal. This means they need a specific act of repeal rather than just being overwritten by newer laws. (you can see this working in the way some of the old parts of magna carta were repealed) Liars in the occupation government claim that any law which does not suit them is implicitly repealed, despite that not being the case, and thuggish pigs brutally enforce the unlawful whims of the occupation government with gratuitous violence.

      We need to start fighting back. We don’t need more paperwork, we need more people who are prepared to physically fight for their rights! The only thing UK occupation government listens to is people blowing up the buildings they need to fleece us all, if you’re not blowing shit up you’re unheard.

    Europe

    Zelensky’s day

    KievVladimir Zelensky is the new Ukrainian president. But who is the TV comedian who will run the scandal-prone country really?

    AfD is the strongest party in East Germany

    BerlinIn a survey by the polling institute Emnid on Sunday about which German party would be a favourite in a federal election, the AfD came out as the strongest party in East Germany.

    Ukraine elects its first Jewish president

    KievA real comedian, Volodymyr Zelensky, better known for playing a president in a TV show, won the final round of the presidential election on Sunday. The incumbent President Petro Poroshenko has conceded defeat.

    Act XXIII: Journalists targeted by police in Paris

    ParisJournalists covering the Yellow Vest demonstration have reported that some of their colleagues have been arrested by the police. Others have been victims of police violence.

    Notre Dame: Was it arson?

    ParisOne of three jihadists involved in a foiled plot in 2016 to launch an attack on the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris was sentenced to eight years in prison by a French court just days before before a fire destroyed the iconic spire and roof.

    In a Yellow Vest through Paris

    ParisAn exclusive FWM reportage on the Yellow Vest movement that has riled French President Emmanuel Macron for months now. Our reporter joined a group of the famous gilets jaunes.

    Notre Dame blaze destroys French national unity

    ParisWhile French and Catholics mourn the tragedy that struck the cathedral of Paris on Monday, Internet users, especially Muslims, preferred instead to celebrate the fire with insults and shameful ridicule.

    Huge loss for France as iconic 850- year old Notre Dame embers smolder

    ParisThe origin of the gigantic fire, which devastated the Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral on Monday, is still unknown, but an investigation was opened for "involuntary destruction by fire," announced the Paris prosecutor's office in the evening.

    Finns Party wins second highest score in election

    HelsinkiA conservative political party that campaigned against open borders and climate change policies won the second-highest number of seats in Finland's parliamentary elections on Sunday.

    Austria warns of new mass migration wave being prepared

    ViennaAustrian Interior Minister Herbert Kickl (FPÖ) has warned in a letter to the EU Commission that Europe will be facing a new wave of mass immigration.

    Go to archive