Rishi Sunak began his supposedly important speech saying: ‘The question we face today is this: Who has the clear plan and bold ideas to deliver a secure future for you and your family?’ He thus steered his speech away from the defence of the realm and towards more general issues. In answer to his question, his speech revealed that whoever it was, it was not him.

Sunak highlighted the threat posed both by anti-Western countries Russia, Iran, North Korea and China, and the wars in both Europe and the Middle East. Further, in Africa, ‘conflicts are being fought in 18 different countries’. Of course, Russia, North Korea and China were anti-Western during the Cold War. What has changed is the balance of power with the emergence of China as a superpower. Also, there is an ongoing war in Europe between Ukraine and Russia – a war for which the West has not ramped up munitions production (unlike Russia) and which, therefore, Ukraine is in danger of losing.

Sunak continued: ‘And in this world of greater conflict and danger, 100 million people are now displaced globally. Countries like Russia are weaponising immigration for their own ends, and criminal gangs keep finding new routes across European borders.’ Sunak recognised that in the UK ‘people are abusing our democratic values’ and said that ‘the evils of anti-Semitism or anti-Muslim hatred’ had led to ‘chants on our streets’ and campuses in an attempt ‘to set Briton against Briton’. Sunak did not address the fact that the UK is under attack from within due to the Tory open borders immigration policy.

Sunak believed ‘new and fast-growing economic superpowers like India, Indonesia, and Nigeria are significantly reshaping the global economy’ in ‘this ever more interconnected world’, although he believed that the UK ‘is uniquely placed to benefit. We’ve always been an open, trading, maritime nation; and Brexit has given us the opportunity to trade even more.’ The idea that, due to its own decline, because the UK was now being steadily overtaken by many Third World economies, then this was an opportunity for more free trade is a novel one.

For Sunak, change was inevitable. He believed that the Tories were the best party to manage this change, just as they had managed the economic success since 2010: ’We took difficult decisions to restore our country’s financial security and control national debt, and that allowed us to support the country through Covid, deliver the fastest vaccine roll-out in the world, provide record funding to the NHS, and protect state pensions with the triple lock.’ The Tories had even ‘cut carbon emissions by a third’. On defence, The UK remained ‘NATO’s second biggest defence power’.

Further: ‘We’ve legislated for equal marriage. And it is now not even surprising for people from ethnically diverse backgrounds to lead Scotland, Wales, and the United Kingdom.’ A claim that reveals Sunak is out of step with English public opinion. At best, Sunak is woke-Right.

Consequently, according to Sunak, ‘The plan is working – so we must stick to it, and not go back to square one.’ Far from it, Sunak said: ‘Let me tell you more about my vision for how I would lead this country through this time of danger and transformation.’ He claimed the Tories had ‘proudly taken the generational decision to increase defence spending to a new baseline of 2.5% of GDP, by 2030. Yet Labour have refused to match our pledge.’

Of the cross-Channel invasion and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Sunak said: ‘I know that our international frameworks are outdated. So there may be flashpoints ahead with the ECHR. And if the Strasbourg Court make me choose between the ECHR and this country’s security, I will choose our country’s security every single time.’ A claim that is without commitment and completely meaningless.

Sunak then proceeded to criticise ‘rip-off degrees’, the need for more apprenticeships, and the need for more housebuilding. He also wanted to lead a government that would support entrepreneurship. By contrast he wanted to ‘crack down’ on welfare fraud, crime, and to increase NHS staff numbers: ‘A service staffed by tens of thousands more doctors and nurses, thanks to our Long Term Workforce Plan.’ The ‘Long Term Workforce Plan’ has yet to be implemented, and the NHS is still restricting the numbers of British doctors and nurses while it merrily imports them from the Third World instead.

Sunak concluded his speech saying: ‘There are storms ahead. The dangers are all too real. But Britain can feel proud again. Britain can feel confident again. Because with bold action and a clear plan, we can and we will create a secure future.’

On the strength of this flannel, we are supposed to feel safer. Sunak has been criticised for lacking a vision, and this is his attempt to create one. He has failed.

In Turbo Brexit, I wrote:

‘Independence will be taken as consisting of three aspects. First, sovereignty and the ability of government to take decisions; equally important is their willingness to do so. A government might be sovereign, but if it continually defers decisions it should take to outside entities then that sovereignty becomes diluted or even worthless. Power is not the same as sovereignty, and the ability to implement a decision should be taken into consideration in the exercise of sovereignty.

Second, is military power and security. Is a sovereign, independent nation able to defend itself and its borders? Does it have the military capability to project forces to support foreign policy objectives? Naturally, a puny military power will have less influence than a strong one.

Third, is the economy. Can the sovereign, independent nation pay its way? Can the government pay its bills and honour its obligations to its people? Currently, the British government cannot and successive governments have been dishonouring commitments to the public for a considerable time (the erosion of the state pension and social care being obvious examples). Can a country trade successfully and export sufficient goods and services to pay for imports? Currently, Britain cannot. Change is therefore necessary and this is an important reason for Turbo Brexit. Britain cannot afford to blunder on indefinitely as it is, as a member of the EU.

This book will argue that it is only by implementing a genuine Brexit that Britain can look forward to being a successful independent country.’

Not only has the UK blundered on after the Brexit vote in 2016, but it has failed to make the most of Brexit and deal with the issues identified above. Sunak’s speech typifies this.

Regarding independence and sovereignty, Sunak has been a proactive in his determination to move away from a Brexit agenda. He has emerged as a closet Remainer. This very week, a judge in Northern Ireland has cited Sunak’s Windsor Framework (which keeps Northern Ireland under EU control) in a ruling concerning immigration. Sunak is almost solely responsible for the Windsor Framework.

In his speech, Sunak blustered about choosing national security over the ECHR. But that bluster can mean anything and is not a commitment to leave the ECHR. Were he so resolute, then why has he not already left the ECHR given its continued meddling in UK affairs – especially regarding illegal immigration. Sunak is subordinating the UK to the ECHR. In the referendum, the UK voted to Take Back Control.

Highly relevant to Sunak’s speech is military power and security. Not only is the UK unable to defend its borders against the illegal immigrant invasion across the Channel, but its military capability is puny. A recent announcement that the amount to be spent on defence is to be increased to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2030 is worthless. There will be at least another two general elections before then. The amount spent on defence is important, but how it is spent is more so. A commitment to spend more money does not increase military capability. The Sunak government has yet to commit to any such increase – be it more warships, fighter aircraft or artillery. Military strength is measured by military capability and not by the size of the defence budget.

Sunak totally failed to see the bigger picture on the economy. The UK cannot pay its way in the world and there is no plan to remedy that. The government is keen to welch on its commitment to the British public, for example regarding pensions and care for the elderly.

Sunak’s plan does not offer a more secure future. It offers only more of the same. It is a plan of declinism: a policy or belief that the best the UK can expect, or deserves, is the orderly management of decline.