My opponent has come here this evening in order to form what can only be regarded as a rather morbid task. She has come to convince you that you should be prepared to die for Britain. Now indeed, this fatal course of action is not just the obscene product of my opponent’s imagination. The practical acceptance by the major governments of the world of military policies which could lead to the annihilation of millions of human lives leaves every one of us as a candidate, whether we support our opponent or do not, for the mass human wreckage which a future world war would most certainly produce. So we should be in no doubt at the outset that whether we agree that Britain is worth dying for or not, if things go on as they do every one of us in this hall are the potential victims. To accept my opponent’s proposition is to do more than to offer a dull nod of the head towards the idiocies of nationalist rhetoric that in itself is harmless. To accept that Britain is worth dying for is to enter with complacency into the belief that natural resources and human energies must be squandered upon an unprecedented campaign of preparation for war. To accept the military status quo is to do nothing to change a world which can produce four tonnes of explosive per head of the global population at the same time as a third of the world’s population are starving, thirty million a year at the rate of the equivalent of one Hiroshima every two days. And to go along with my opponent is to follow her into a barbaric line of reasoning which regards violence and ultimately the sacrifice of human life as the most efficient means of resolving conflict. As a socialist I stand in total and uncompromising hostility to the proposition that Britain or indeed any other country is worth dying for. It is my intention then to convince you that the workers of the world have no country either to be loyal to during life or to sacrifice ourselves for in war. For the workers of the world have got far more in common with each other whatever may be written on our passports than we will ever have who call upon us to die for the sake of their greed, plunder and imperial ambition. So let me make the position of the Socialist party plain right at the outset. It is our view that every worker whose life is lost in the great scramble for profits has wasted his or her life. That every drop of workers blood which is shed for the sake of nationalism is a stain upon the present social order and that stain can only be removed by removing this social order. My opponent in the spirit of the perverse Orwellian logic that was dominating capitalism long before 1984 tells you that we need bombs to preserve peace. You want peace, according to her Ladyship, prepare for war. The Socialist answer to that logic is very simple, so simple that it has perhaps escaped my opponent’s thought-process. If you want peace, you prepare for peace. And the only way that you can prepare for peace is by eradicating the cause of war. And I propose to show that the cause of war lies within the present capitalist system of society whether it is a private capitalism or the west or the state capitalism of the east. My purpose is to convince you that a social system that is geared to rivalry over control of the world market and ruthless competition between antagonists over the market is not a system which causes war by accident; it is a system that causes war as a matter of inevitability. I shall argue then that the world capitalist system together with its nations, its flags, its armies, its torture chambers and the equipment supplied for them by British and other governments must be thrown onto the scrapheap of historical anachronisms. And in its place we’ve got to establish a system of society based upon need and not profit and upon the cultivation of life rather than the hideous preparation for death. So I’m arguing against nationalism because I’ve got no country and for socialism because I’ve got a world to win. And let me say right at the outset that those who protest as they sing the words of the Internationale to the tune of the national anthem that nationalism and socialism are not compatible. You have to have one or the other and in arguing against nationalism and for socialism I am very much aware of the conspicuous absence this evening of two groups of people at this debate. Firstly there are those who have lost their lives because their minds were captured by the infectious illusion of nationalism. They were convinced that it was their duty to go out and fight. The thirty million who died between 1914 and 1918 in what was laughably called the war to end all wars. And after they fought and died to end all wars, then millions more went out, backed up by those fake democratic allies Churchill and Stalin to fight a war that was meant to be for freedom and democracy. And then, there are the young men driven by the frustration of the dole queue and perhaps even the hope of a certain amount of adventure in the possibility of legalised gang warfare who join the army and the navy. They joined it for a bit of adventure and what did they see? They saw the bottom of the South Atlantic. Workers in uniform who were blown to pieces in the Falklands War so that the leader of my opponent’s party could build an image of iron strength upon the wasted corpses of young men out in the South Atlantic. Was Britain worth dying for, for them? Would they be cheering so passionately at the rhetoric of nationalism if they had their chance over again? The millions of soldiers whose wasted corpses stand as a grotesque symbol of patriotism are not here to know that they died in vain; they died as pawns in a game of political and commercial rivalry which had nothing at all to do with their human interests. But there are others who have survived and if my opponent wants to learn, she should listen to them. The men and women who fought in two world wars to defend this madhouse called civilisation who are now existing on a pittance of a pension and ten thousand of them last winter died for Britain. Not because there was a war on, they died of hypothermia. Because having gone out and fought and been injured and given their energies to fight for a country which they mistakenly believed was theirs, couldn’t even afford to switch on a heater and they died. My opponent should go and talk to workers who have come back from wars without limbs, with brain damage, with half their skin burned off. Now that those ruined lives have been thrown onto the scrap heap of what is called the disabled, how many of them are counting their increased shared dividends in Charrington Coalite who own most of the Falkland Islands. How many of them are going out and investing their millions in the markets which they helped to expand? Before my opponent and those like her indulge in the dangerous rhetoric of nationalism, let them remember that behind every flag waving slogan-chanting display of patriotism lies the reality of a military technology which grows more lethal as the capitalist requirement for profits becomes more voracious. And there’s a second group of people who are not here tonight, the infants, the babies, the children, the potentially innocent victims who are the sitting targets of my opponent’s bombs for peace. Nobody will ask them whether Britain is worth dying for. Nobody asks their parents whether they are prepared to sacrifice their children for the sake of their master’s quarrels. If my opponent is asked why do we have to have war? And if we argue it out for long enough, I think it will come down to words. These are two of the most pernicious words in the political words; human nature. All of the guns and the bombs, all of the concentration camps, these are a reflection of human nature. That’s what they say. But is this so? Is it true that children are born with an innate propensity to hate enemies? I put it to my opponent that humans are born with a need to co-operate not to fight, that it is the present social order which needs to indoctrinate workers to believe that they’ve got enemies. That needs to drive into our heads that these are your enemies today and when your bosses have made a trade alliance with them, they are friends tomorrow. Is it true that babies in cots in China have got some of kind of in born animosity towards babies in cots in Russia because Khrushchev fall out with Chairman Mao about thirty years ago. Is it true that Iranian and Iraqi children have got this natural hatred for each other and is it true that our uniquely human rationality can allow us no better than to mature into farts who can only solve our problems by maintaining a permanent threat of global destruction. Socialists reject entirely the conservative dogma that human behaviour is fixed into the mould of aggression and non-co-operation and the fact is that that aggression, that hatred, that nationalism, is driven in to workers minds against their better judgements at childhood. Why is it then that the present system of capitalism leads to war? To answer this, we need to understand a few things about the system. To begin with, let’s be quite clear, capitalism does not exist in order to satisfy human needs, that is a myth. It exists in order to make profits for a minority and if that minority cannot expect a profit then humans are deprived of the satisfaction of basic needs. The chief object of the capitalist is to sell commodities on the market with a view to profit. And they will do this without any concern about ideology. Russia and South Africa, picks a price of gold in quite happy trade collaboration every single day of the week. The United States and China are major trade partners and Britain – quite prepared to trade with any of the people who are its alleged ideological enemies. In short, the race for profits goes on, without ideology getting in the way. The patriotic garbage is put on show for the consumption of the working-class. But I can assure that the Swiss bank account class, the class which is, had a massive transfer of capital to where labour power is cheaper and they can get a higher rate of profit, they certainly aren’t concerned about such sentiments as patriotism. So by and large, capitalist trade goes on without war. Periodically however, the thieves fall out. And it’s at that point that capitalist competition over markets, over trade routes and over raw materials erupts into a parade of violence. And at such times, huge fortunes are spent on whipping up popular emotions of chauvinism and hatred for the enemy. Millions of pounds are spent on showing the working-class that the Russians are our enemies, Russians who we wouldn’t know if we met them. And the Argies can’t be trusted, remember that? It’s not so much in the press these days. And then with utter cynicism, the rival capitalist states, dress their wage slaves in uniform, pay the priests to bless the bombs, and having persuaded those with nothing to gain except a grave, there proceeds legalised and morally sanctified killing of thousands or hundreds of thousands, or in the case of the war, that awaits us, many millions of people. And let us be under no illusion whatever the rhetorical justifications of the capitalists, those wars are fought for one reason, commercial gain. And in their more honest moments, which in the case of the present Minister of Defence has not yet occurred, they have said this, the capitalists have come out in the open and admitted that what the wars are all about is making a profit. Let me give you some examples. In 1890 Joseph Chamberlain, a Conservative government minister, confirmed precisely what I as a socialist have been saying. In a speech to a Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, now he must have been telling the truth then, no-one tells lies in the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, and he said, ‘all the great offices of state are occupied with commercial affairs, the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office are chiefly engaged in finding new markets and defending old ones. The War Office and the Admiralty are mostly occupied in the defence of these markets and for the protection of our commerce.’ And those whose relatives were killed fighting for Britain out in India, they would be interested to hear what the conservative Home Secretary in 1925 Lord Brentford had to say about that, I quote; ‘We did not conquer India for the benefit of the Indians. I know it is said at missionary meetings that we conquered India to raise the level of the Indians. That is cant; we conquered India as the outlet for the goods of Great Britain.’ Again in 1939, my opponent might tell us that the war was fought to defend noble principles of democratic rights and fighting against Nazism. And I would be very interested if my opponent would tell me how much she agrees with the comment written in the open letter written by Churchill in the Daily Telegraph before the Second World War, when he wrote, I quote; ‘I have always said that if Britain were defeated in war, I hope that we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations.’ Was it then a war for democracy and for freedom, for human rights, or was not the position more accurately summed up by the Conservative minister for overseas trade in 1939 when he said ‘We are not going to give up any markets to anyone. Great Britain is strong enough to fight for markets abroad.’ That was what they fought for and as a final quotation in support of the socialist analysis, you’ll notice that none of these come from these so-called rabid Marxists, all from my opponent’s side. Let me quote from Smedley D. Butler, I mean he must be from my opponent’s side, he was a former Major General in the United States Marine Corps. And he wrote ‘I served in all commissioned ranks, from a Second Lieutenant to a Major General and during that period I spent most of my time being a high class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.’ Major General for the United States Marine Corps in his own autobiography. And that is what they want us to die for. Now my opponent might say we should be prepared to die to defend what is ours. Well, what is ours? Let’s take a look at what is ours and let’s take a look at what ain’t ours. Only seven per cent of the British population own any marketable stocks and shares, not my figures, Inland Revenue 1980s report. Ninety three per cent of the British population own no stocks and shares which they can sell. I know we’re meant all to be on pension funds which you get when you die. Well that’s not quite enough. The poorest eighty per cent of the British population according to the Royal Commission report of 1979 said that the poorest eighty per cent of the British population own less of the accumulated wealth than the richest one per cent. Just one per cent own more of Britain than eighty per cent with everything we possess added together. A mere two per cent of the British population own sixty four per cent of the land in this country and I could carry on quoting statistics, not our statistics, their statistics. I could carry on quoting them all night. But I don’t have to do that to prove that workers have got no economic stake in capitalism. You know, without me having to tell you, that when they talk about defending our markets, they’re not talking about Chapel Street market. When they talk about defending our property, they’re not talking about our rented video machines and the second-hand Cortina. Don’t think they are, you’d need a pea-shooter to defend that. The fact of the matter is the, Chairman, is that if the Russians sent an aeroplane over to Britain to rob from the working-class what belongs to us, it would cost them more in petrol fuel than they would pick up in the whole of Islington. Let me just say this, that when I read in the Daily Telegraph, and I read the Daily Telegraph, and I just hope she reads the Socialist Standard. When I read the Prime Minister’s New Year message to the nation, it was printed in the Readers Digest, famous intellectual journal, and she says ‘liberty and property are intricately bound-up in our history, a country that has no property rights, has no human rights.’ I respond to that by saying that when property is concentrated into the hands of a parasitical minority whether they are millionaire share-holders or whether they are state bureaucrats in the Kremlin, then it is fraudulent in the extreme to suggest that to die for property is to die for our liberty. So my opponent will just have to concede that is workers are to die for Britain, they will be dying for their Britain not for our Britain. And then of course, there is the argument that we should be prepared to die to defend our way of life, our culture. Now I must admit that I find it very odd to imagine that cruise missiles have been brought to Britain in order to defend the collective works of Shakespeare against a pre-emptive strike from the Pushkin appreciation society. Of course, workers don’t have a way of life to defend. Why should we die in defence of McDonald’s hamburgers and Dallas for us, and the Ritz hotel and Ascot for them, when instead there’s a greater task before us to create a society where all people have free access to the best goods and service which human endeavour can provide? Why not put that as our aim? And imagine for a moment if these obscene weapons of mass destruction were used. Would they be defending our way of life? Would they be defending this so-called civilisation? In the Stockton evening gazette on the twelfth of August last year I read a report and this is one of many illustrations of how these bombs for peace are going to defend our way of life. I quote ‘a doctor is recommending that victims of a nuclear attack should be stoned to death to put them out of their misery. Doctor Barney Williams has produced a controversial ten point survival plan which he has been handing to patients at his surgery. Survivors are advised that the best treatment for people dying in pain is a crack on their head with a large stone.’ That should certainly be within the government’s projected budget for the NHS. Of course, mass destruction will not defend life or culture or human dignity and I challenge my opponent, and I think the onus is on her to do it, to show us how it will. But I know that my opponent might say one other thing. And as I’m moving towards closing remarks, let me comment on it. I know there are a few gullible people around who will accept the point that it’s the Russians we’ve got to defend ourselves against all these Russians and all these Poles but we like them sometimes but not all the time. We’ve got to defend ourselves against them. And there are a few people who actually believe in the rhetoric. They believe that the dictators in Russia are socialist dictators. They believe that the Russian bombs are bombs for liberation. And in falling for this mythology as many Russian workers have done and I have spoken to many who have, they have been taken in no less than workers in any other country by the myth that you can support your own interests by supporting the needs of profit. And in the propagandists in Russia just like my opponent whose task is to whip up nationalist feeling in the interests of imperial expansion, as a matter of fact, they’re not just like my opponent, I was actually reading a speech by one the other day that has got the same name as my opponent or half of it. She is called Olga Grabenowich. You know you can disagree with the Ben bit I know. And it struck me just how ideologically hollow and how dangerous this rhetoric is wherever it comes from and in whatever language it is uttered. Somebody has suggested to me that we might be able to start up a multi-lateral comedy show called the two Olgas; guaranteed to die laughing but anyway. I want to conclude on this that there is an alternative. It is no good just saying what we don’t want, there is an alternative. To abolish the system which needs to sacrifice people for profits. To establish a society in which the resources of the world belong to the inhabitants of the world and why in the society which is based on common ownership and democratic control where the world at last belongs to the people and in a democracy it has got to belong to its inhabitants. Why would people then want to go to war? When you’ve got rid of the institutions of property, when you’ve got rid of the institution of the market and of profits and of all of the socially anachronistic features of capitalism. In conclusion I would urge my opponent to remember two things. Firstly the Socialist party is not concerned to oppose one weapon as to oppose another. As far as we are concerned the rubber bullet on the streets of Belfast is just as obnoxious as the cruise missile. The SX20, the Exocet, the chemical and biological weapons, whoever controls them, whoever’s finger is on the button, we are against them all. They must all be removed, by removing that which is their cause. Secondly let me remind my opponent that the Socialist party is not appealing to capitalist governments on either side to disarm unilaterally or multilaterally. The futility of expecting governments to run a system of ruthless competition without the most hideous violence is like petitioning muggers to extract money from their victims by means of gentle persuasion, it can’t happen. There are those who think you can run capitalism peacefully, there are those who think that you can civilise warfare. The Socialist party rejects those ideas and that is why because my opponent’s arguments are so much part of the perverse logic of capitalism you have got to make an important and urgent choice. Will you surround yourself with the means of destruction in the false hope that the reason for their creation will not lead to the reason for their use. Or will you organise politically and consciously to establish a society where the missiles are in the museums and we can all listen to tapes of Lady Olga Maitland and we will be able to say it is lucky we learned in time.
Thank you very much indeed Mr. Chairman for giving me the opportunity today to come to respond to Mr. Coleman. He said many comments which gave me cause for laughter when you intentionally humourous and you made comments which caused me anxiety for the sake of us all. First of all, may I say that I sympathise with everyone who fears the threat of a world destruction. Now I agree with you it is a morbid task to say are you prepared to die without any principles. So I think that is really what you are trying to say. You are talking about mass human wreckage; a future world war which in fact you don’t even know could happen in the way that you envisage. You talk about human resources being squandered. You talk about should we sacrifice our life as the most efficient means of solving conflict. But Mr. Chairman, there is one thing that I must remind you, as a very proud member, I’m holder of my British passport, I will say emphatically yes, I would die for Britain and I believe all those who have died in generations behind me have felt it was worth their sacrifice. War is an emotive subject, we all know that. The question we want to ask ourselves is why do we actually go to war? I will mention one fact that Mr. Coleman seems to have totally forgotten in his speech, he forgot to mention, that we, the people of Great Britain, pride ourselves on those most precious words in the English language; freedom, liberty, democracy. Britain has always been proud to defend itself, it has never opted out. Well you could not in years go by, force a man to fight if he wouldn’t, he could just stop. He’d just lay down his gun, he may be. You could have conscription but you can’t force him to throw that bullet. The fact is, throughout all the wars throughout history, in Britain, we have defended ourselves as a nation, all types, all social classes and I may say I remind you Mr. Coleman, I am a member of the working-class because I have a salaried job like other people. All types, all economic conditions, soldiers and officers go to war, they don’t ask each other which party do they support in the ballot box. They go to war because of what they really care about is their freedom of their country and their country has been intimidated and is in danger of being overrun. I agree with you that wars start really for the reasons of power and that is human nature. It happens with animals, an animal in the jungle will kill another animal. Wars happen because people, in fact even Mr. Coleman mentioned, they scrabble for mineral resources, trade routes. They also seek to press their own cultures and their own philosophical doctrinations. Communism is the problem that we face today. The great threat to us, as we stand in this room, is that we face a very tense time in 1984. We have the world leaders in Scotland arguing a war of words and let us hope and pray that restraint by deterrent will control things until we can bring true peace. But the fact is, we have a very strong potential enemy and that is the Soviets. With their expansionist philosophy and we have to face the fact that unless we show we have a moral fibre and a willingness to defend ourselves, there will not be this great country of Great Britain and I stress the word Great Britain. If we don’t show we have this resolution, we don’t show strength, they will impose upon us the same kind of treatment they’ve imposed upon those people of Afghanistan, gassed, weak and helpless, aeroplanes flying over their heads daily strafing villagers who don’t even have a gun between three or four people. In fact the Soviet Union has spread their own philosophies, their own man power, their own resources, personnel, equipment, into fifty-six different countries in the world. Many countries have been willing recipients of Soviet invasion. I name of course, those who have now been incorporated into the Warsaw pact, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland which we see regularly on television. People fighting for freedom, that, Mr. Coleman is what we treasure. And those who have lost freedom know how precious it is. And Britain is a country which must show that we have the resolution to defend ourselves because we are a vital piece of real estate in Europe. We are the cornerstone of NATO and if we’re not careful, there’s communists through using subversive measures in our countries in the West, in Britain, could take us over through perfectly lawful means without firing a bullet because the peace movements are aiding and abetting their methods. And I will say the peace movements may be noisy, they may be going for unlawful protests but they do not represent the vast majority of the electorate in this country and they have failed to express themselves and win people over at the general election where people were able to show their feelings at the ballot box. But we do now today, nearly a year now onwards from that election, face the fear that there is a moral war upon us because although we have a strong defence there are many people who are trying to destroy us by moral disarray, by trading on fear, ignorance, inaccurate information and of course the statement, we of course know of our cruise being described as a first-strike missile is such unutterable nonsense that CND are criminal for even mentioning it. The appeasers in this country are the ones who could create a war, who could at the end of the day, rend us open and weak to the world destruction that Mr Coleman fears. Because they could give a potential enemy, the Soviets, who have a power and a strength and a determination, they have a conventional strength, a nuclear strength, far superior to ours, they could give them the temptation to try their luck. The question is we have to show them that not only do we have the military defences in the west at a credible minimum level but that we also have the moral resolution, the moral fibre. And I think that we need to go back in history to the time when that famous debate took place in Oxford at the Oxford Union. The King and Country debate followed a time when the First World War, when almost a complete generation of men were wiped out in a tragedy. They did not die in vain. They died for freedom. But of course many people were concerned how to prevent such a tragedy happening again and the intellectuals arose in the 1920s. Like the appeasers in CND, like Bruce Kent who only day before yesterday in Edinburgh told me that he was quite honestly a pacifist. I say abhorrent because that means you are prepared to sacrifice your liberty and freedom. And during this is a very dangerous period because if you follow that line of thinking you are following the line of thinking that took place at the time of the debate of King and Country when many people felt let us put our trust in the League of Nations, let us support an international boundaries which could give way to a perfect world. But it failed because of human nature. Human nature has evil stains in it as well as it has much good in it. And it was because that Hitler saw Britain lost its moral fibre that he was tempted and he attacked and we were weak, we were vulnerable. Where he miscalculated is that Britain rallied and we would fight to the bitter end. And I will say to you today that all you appeasers in this room, should your country be genuinely threatened and you would lose your homes, your freedoms, your children will be, I believe that despite the blackmail damage caused by the CND campaign of terror, fear, offering easy slick solutions which can only benefit the Soviets, I believe that the people of this country will once again rise up and fight side-by-side as they have done for hundreds of years. I do feel that very powerfully that you must never underestimate the British Tommy grit. You may laugh today, but the laugh will be on the other side when you have lost your freedoms and you will not have the right to sit and laugh because you will be suffering under a totalitarian regime. The laughter will be on the other side of your face. The good lie dear lady is to actually, well I should try again to have made myself a bit clearer. The real question is not to laugh about these matters but to realise what you would lose if you actually were taken over. We have sufficient deterrents here in the West, nuclear and conventional which we seek all the time to reduce the lowest most possible level. I support Mr. Coleman if only it would be possible in an ideal world to get rid of every single weapon in the world, right the way down to a hammer. We can’t. We cannot because there are other people who would never follow suit. It would be one-sided disarmament, whether you follow the line of one-sided disarmament on nuclear weapons or in any other way. We must maintain our strength, we must keep up these deterrents despite the pressures put upon the governments by naïve and politically minded people who are seeking to destroy us. Yes, people have died in wars, I agree with you, people have suffered tortures to ensure a free world for children. But this is an evil world, there is no safety for you to just say lay down your arms. You would not be able to live the life that you wish to be able to live today. It would not be available to you. And I want to warn you, you mustn’t fall for the nuclear blackmail that is facing us in the Western world today. It is blackmail which is what they are trying to do even over the Christmas period time, a time of peace and goodwill, the Soviets were deploying more SS20s. Just think what you would lose if in fact you lay down your arms. You would lose the freedoms. And I want you to cast your mind over to perhaps the most vivid symbol in Europe today which is the Berlin wall. Why is it that one thousand two hundred people made the effort and risked their lives to get over that wall from the East to the West in one year alone? And can you count how many people have voluntarily gone the other way to risk and live a life under totalitarian oppression? Who wants that kind of life? People try desperately to get away to freedom. And when I talk to someone who is like a Czech dissident like Joseph Jostin who has suffered so much and he says you can never know the meaning of freedom until you have lost it. And I think of people like Bukovsky who have suffered so much and Sharansky who is suffering now so much. This is oppression in Russia, this is not what we in Britain want to tolerate in our country. And I want to remind you another thing. Mr. Coleman referred to my name Olga, it is not a whim of my parents that I was baptised such. My mother is Yugoslav, she has seen her country been taken over by communism. She has seen her family lose their freedoms, their homes, their jobs, because they did not fall in with the totalitarian oppression. And just think also what loss of freedoms mean, the loss of freedoms means you cannot choose where you live, how you live, where you work, where you move to. You would have no intellectual freedom, you would have censorship in the press. A press as a journalist where there is no censorship and in any case, as a journalist who is often on the other side of the blanket when it comes to being reported upon, I would say that the press is very largely supervised by the left-wing in this country, a press and a free press. Mr Chairman, these are the reasons why we want to preserve our liberty, our democracy to vote our governments in and out, they cannot do that behind the Iron Curtain. They have one candidate in an election, not a variety, nor even candidates for the great Socialist Party of Great Britain. There is no choice, we have that in this country, you can vote any government in you want, it is a Great Britain. This is why Britain is worth dying for and I will maintain that is it always to be considered that and we will never give in to the appeasers who are trying to cause the moral disarray in our society. Our country from the North of Scotland down to the Channel Islands is covered with war memorials for reasons that those men died to give us the freedom which we enjoy today, the freedom for you to come here today, to listen and even to protest. The last year in November I attended the cenotaph ceremony Whitehall, it was the largest in years. The people who turned up there stretched from Trafalgar Square to Parliament Square, I wonder why? It wasn’t exactly an easy day, it was bitterly cold, they came to remember, to remind themselves why people died for us and to ensure that they did not die in vain. Women and families for defence are standing up to you appeasers. We will not allow you to get away with it. Last Easter, tulips were laid on war memorials throughout the country, as a very private gesture by the great silent majority to show that Britain is worth dying for, that they have not died in vain and that we care about our liberty and we will do it again this Easter and it won’t just be restrained to Britain, it will be throughout Europe, the war memorials will be covered in flowers. 1984 is a year of international tension, but we will not give up our own ideals and we will not allow them to slip away by default because Britain will never let go of what it has always stood for. We will always fight to the bitter end. Britain with its great history, its identity, its pride and liberty, freedom and democracy, Mr. Chairman, is well worth fighting for. Thank you.