Jeremy Corbyn 3

224 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Labour has an alternative to the Tories’ no-deal nightmare. Here it is

..the problem

quote:

So why would they want a no-deal? A group of hard-right Brexit economists has proposed the unilateral abolition of UK tariffs, which they openly admit would see the loss of our manufacturing base. They think this would be a good thing, and propel us into a new, service-based economy. That is why Fox and Dominic Raab and Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are not concerned about crashing out on to WTO rules – they believe it would enable them to turn Britain into a deregulated free-market economy like Singapore.

Labour must and does oppose this dystopia. And it must do so by charting a way of leaving the EU that can unite the divided people of our country. Respecting the result of the referendum but determined not to let that decision impose new border controls that stop our just-in-time supply chains, close down our factories and lose British jobs.

People often think that no-deal is only about our relationship with Europe. They know that 44% of UK exports and 53% of UK imports go to and come from Europe. Our trading relationships with 70-plus countries, from Mexico to South Korea, also depend on trade agreements we are party to as an EU member state. A no-deal scenario would scrap our trade agreements with these countries overnight.

In such a scenario, the UK would be left trading on World Trade Organization terms. However, these terms are determined by our WTO schedules, which establish the tariffs and quotas we must apply to all goods coming into our market. The UK shares its schedules with the other 27 members at present, and while the average tariff is fairly low, at 2.6%, tariffs in some sectors such as the automotive, agricultural and dairy industries are significantly higher. Cars and automotive parts flowing in and out of the UK to the EU would face a 10% tariff; dairy products would face an average tariff of 35%; while some meat products would face tariffs of more than 80%. Beyond the EU, tariffs would be much higher still: automotive up to 35%, meat up to 100% and dairy up to 200%.

The other problem is that after Brexit, as an independent member of the WTO, we need our own schedules. And those schedules have to be agreed by every other WTO member. A year ago Fox nonchalantly explained that this was nothing but a series of “technical changes” that should pose no problem. Yet the proposed change still faces fierce resistance from key allies such as the US, New Zealand and Australia.

A no-deal scenario would leave the UK facing a host of non-tariff barriers. Currently our standards, regulation and protections – ranging from health and safety to financial services – are harmonised with those of the EU. With no-deal, we would not have mutual recognition agreements that would ensure British goods and services can enter the European market.

A no-deal scenario would leave the UK facing a host of non-tariff barriers. Currently our standards, regulation and protections – ranging from health and safety to financial services – are harmonised with those of the EU. With no-deal, we would not have mutual recognition agreements that would ensure British goods and services can enter the European market.

At first, it sounds plausible to say that no-deal is better than a bad deal; that is until you realise that no-deal is, in fact, a very, very bad deal itself. Businesses across the UK have warned time and again that a no-deal would have catastrophic consequences. Airbus, BMW and Jaguar Land Rover have warned it could lead to thousands of job losses and the closure of plants. It is extraordinary that government is refusing to listen to them and, albeit more politely, is echoing Boris Johnson’s Anglo-Saxon outburst.

..labour's solution

quote:

The only way to ensure friction-free trade in goods between the UK and the EU is through Labour’s proposed new comprehensive customs union. This must be accompanied by a new, strong, single market deal with the EU which establishes common institutions and guarantees access for our products and services.

Crucially, we need a transition period to put this into effect. Instead of re-running the debates from two years ago, Labour must unite in our opposition to the cliff edge of no-deal that this government is currently driving us towards. This Tory nightmare is simply not an option for businesses, workers and families in this country. Labour’s alternative is. It respects the vote to leave and protects our economy at the same time.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

The government is seeking new free trade deals after Brexit – and we could all pay the price

In a somewhat surreal twist, in what is already an increasingly surreal global landscape, UK trade minister Liam Fox announced that the government will do a public consultation on whether the UK should seek to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) once the UK leaves the European Union next March. Quite rightly, many think this move is ridiculous as we are nowhere near the Pacific. The idea of Britain joining the partnership defies the logic of what is supposed to be a regional trade bloc. It appears to be a desperate act by a desperate government that is making the majority in this country feel more and more apprehensive each day by its perplexing Brexit plans.

quote:

New deals, old swindling

Trade campaigners in countries covered by CPTPP opposed the original TPP, and they see no reason why they should now support the revised partnership. Most of the original TPP text remains intact in the new deal, while the provisions that the US prioritised were altered or suspended in the new agreement (which does not include the USA). Two-thirds of the thirty CPTPP chapters are identical to those in TPP. Many elements resemble its counterpart the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which we in Global Justice Now and our allies in continental Europe and the US opposed.

What remains in the CPTPP are the brutal chapters that have strong and binding arbitration mechanisms at their core. Faster and smoother customs procedures, including self-certification of shipments will make trade more seamless. This is a hallmark of all free trade agreements (FTAs). As we have seen in the past, big business and investors immensely benefit from free trade while marginalising small farmers, businesses and workers. For CPTPP, this means enhanced market access to key developing country markets, especially for the big players. It also includes provisions that allow businesses to compete for government contracts in other countries, and facilitation of e-commerce firms through rules that ensure the free movement of data across borders. Notably, it also includes the much-disliked investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) that allows foreign investors to take governments to court for actions they deem ‘unfair‘ or ‘unjust’. New rules for state-owned enterprises and monopolies will enable private businesses to compete with them in international trade.

josh

Has Israel been covertly fuelling claims of an "anti-Semitism crisis" purportedly plaguing Britain's Labour Party since it elected a new leader, Jeremy Corbyn, three years ago?

. . . .

They suspect that two Israeli government departments – the ministries of foreign affairs and strategic affairs – have been helping to undermine Corbyn as part of a wider campaign by the Israeli government to harm Palestinian solidarity activists.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-s-hidden-hand-behind-attacks-jeremy-corbyn-139423040

 

josh

Although this applies to the U.S., it's relevant to The War on Corbyn.

https://www.juancole.com/2018/08/aljazeera-documentary-americans.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

There’s only one way to stop Brexit: from the ground up

quote:

The opposition has so far played a minor role. Labour’s ambiguity seemed strategic in 2017, and paid off. It promised to respect the referendum result, yet at the same time assured a “jobs-first Brexit”. It was enough to placate the leavers, while assuring the remainers that nothing diabolical would happen.

The intervening months have shown this to be a fantasy. The softest possible Brexit is simply to accept the old rules with new impotence; any other Brexit would be economically painful, and to what purpose? To execute a project born of an ideological battle between the free-market right and the far right. Brexit corresponds to no Labour values.

In the beltway of Westminster, too much emphasis has been put on shifting the leadership from the top. Even if that were possible, changing the minds of five guys in a room could never represent the rewilded, pluralistic democracy upon which the current Labour project is founded. Pressure to remain in the EU can only come from the grassroots, otherwise it is the elite conspiracy, its critics decry. But the important thing missing from the analysis is that this grassroots movement already exists: constituency Labour parties, trade union branches, local Momentum groups and the broader left – steel workers in Hull, migrant workers within the NHS, and NHS staff more generally, Women Against Brexit – all working in ways both coordinated and spontaneous to stop Tory Brexit.

The remain campaign was dominated by the establishment Stronger In group. Its defining tactic was Project Fear, spearheaded by a cross-party coalition including George Osborne and Alan Johnson. It drowned out grassroots left campaigns such as Another Europe is Possible – led by the academic Luke Cooper and the activist Michael Chessum, who also organised the Stop Trump march. The case they made wasn’t about single markets, export tariffs, tailbacks on the M20, even food shortages. It was about the EU as the only set of institutions ever built on the principles of peace and reconciliation, rolling back the nationalist tide; one of very few capable of the kind of collective action – on climate change, the rise of fascism, workers’ rights and taxation – by which the social conquers the corporate.

The EU looms now as this technocratic body, dominated since Margaret Thatcher by the interests of capital – but those were not its roots, and will not be its future. From the group of European socialists who drafted the Ventotene manifesto – a vision for a united Europe – in the 1940s, to Jacques Delors’ social chapter, European federalism was conceived to avoid war, foster equality and build social solidarity. Many of the leftwing critiques of the present-day EU are fair, but are the product of the UK pulling the EU rightwards. To walk away on a Lexit basis is not just uncomradely, it’s a little bit rich.

Speaking practically, the only orderly way now to avoid Brexit is via a Labour government. The Conservatives will not come to their senses; a centrist party would be a pipe dream even if it had any ideas; the Liberal Democrats would need a bounce that would put them on the moon. And there is a nobler truth beneath these gritty psephological realities, which is that the vote to leave the EU was a vote for discontinuity. Leave areas map almost exactly on to those hardest hit by austerity. Whatever your views on Jeremy Corbyn the man, you would acknowledge, I think, that his is the only party that promises radical change. To overturn leave with no plan to overcome the economic conditions beneath it would be acting in bad faith. To accept leave knowing that those conditions would only deteriorate in the wake of its recession would be worse.

josh

The EU looms now as this technocratic body, dominated since Margaret Thatcher by the interests of capital – but those were not its roots, and will not be its future

And we now that, how?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..good question josh. wish i had an answer.

NDPP

"GUARDIAN agit-prop to stop Corbyn and reimpose militarist neoliberalism is now relentless. I count around 40 anti-Corbyn 'anti-Semitism' stories on GUARDIAN website in past 4 weeks alone. The paper's top story. It's agenda could hardly be clearer."

https://twitter.com/markcurtis30/status/1035820965366779904

josh

The effort is being spearheaded by Israel’s Department of Hasbara, which is deathly afraid of Cornyn becoming PM.  The Guardian wants to stop Brexit and sees Corbyn as an impediment to that.  So it latches on to the anti-Semitic smear campaign to try to get rid of him.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the guardian has been anti corbyn period.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Corbyn supporters win all nine seats in the NEC elections.   
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-nec-results-in-full-jeremy-corb...

 

josh

Survation--most accurate pollster in last year's election--shows that the smear campaign against Corbyn isn't working.

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1037041478692990976

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..glad to hear that.

NDPP

Labour Adopts IHRA  Antisemitism Definition in Full

https://twitter.com/davidsheen/status/1037047922968469506

"UK Labour Party abandons Palestinians and other minorities, affirms support for full-spectrum Jewish Supremacy in Israel."

 

Labour Should Ditch the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism Altogether

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/antony-lerman/labour-should-ditch-ihra-...

"...One  of the earliest figures conceptualising 'new antisemitism', publicising the notion and promoting it internationally was Irwin Cotler...The Israeli government needs the 'new antisemitism' to justify its actions and to protect it from international and domestic condemnation. Anti-Semitism is effectively weaponised, not only to stifle speech...but also to suppress a politics of liberation."

josh

The Labour Against Anti-Semitism campaign was disappointed by the addition of the clarifying statement, saying “there can be no caveats, no conditions and no compromises with racism”.

And Labour Friends of Israel said the extra clause was “unnecessary and totally undermines the other examples the party has supposedly just adopted”.

. . . .

And Richard Angell, director of centrist Labour group Progress, said the decision to caveat the announcement was an insult and a retrograde step.

“A ‘right to be racist’ protection… is not just wrong, it harms the cause of peace,” he said. “Labour does not know better than Jewish people about anti-Semitism.”

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/two-steps-forward-one-step-back-in-labour-s-anti-semitism-row-20180905-p501rp.html

A lesson in general.  When groups are permitted to define the parameters of permissble speech, freedom of speech suffers.

NDPP

And an even bigger problem is that of Israel and its penetration into the deepest and most fundamental inner politics of other nations. This is the real elephant in the room few seem willing to tackle - its removal. 

 Corbyn's Anti-Semitism is a Threat To Us All  -  by Stephen Harper

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/harper-corbyns-anti-semitism-is...

"...And so we arrive at the sorry phenomenon that is Britain's leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn - a man who lays wreaths at the graves of anti-Semitic terrorists...From the highest leader to the foot-soldiers of Corbyn's Momentum, not a day goes by without another vile display of anti-Semitism...It is the far-left's obsession with Israel that concerns us most specifically."

Still playing for the same crowd...

https://youtu.be/ByzcL3jhb5Y

NDPP

Retreat By Corbynites on Anti-Semitism Definition Emboldens UK Right Wing

http://wsws.org/en/articles/2018/09/06/corb-s06.html

"Once again, Corbyn and his immediate coterie have capitulated in the hope of appeasing their critics and maintaining party unity. Once again, the result has been to cede political territory to the right wing, from where they will proceed to launch the next offensive..."

josh

His opposition doesn’t seem to think he’s capitulated.  He wanted a stronger free speech provision, but could not convince the NEC.  He’s successfully fought a two front war for the last three years.  Now he’s fighting an outside country’s effort to destroy him.  I’ll trust his ability to navigate the shoals over armchair critics in the wsws for whom no one seems ever to be good enough.

josh
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

The mood has shifted – now Corbyn really can transform the economy

quote:

A new report vindicates this prophecy. Four years ago, the centre-left Institute for Public Policy Research published its Condition of Britain report. It was timid gruel: it not only accepted austerity, but even proposed freezing child benefit to fund the expansion of childcare.

Under the leadership of Tom Kibasi, the thinktank has attempted to embrace the spirit of our time: the latest report, published by its commission on economic justice, is a critical contribution to a left intellectual revival. Its underlying message is inarguable: the current system is broken. “The UK economy is not working,” it declares. British workers have suffered the longest squeeze in wages for generations; young people face a worse lot in life than their parents; most who languish in poverty are in low-income work; and Britain is Europe’s fifth most unequal society.

Its diagnosis of Britain’s failed economic model is damning indeed. Productivity is 13% below the average of the G7 major economies, and investment is also significantly below the OECD average. The richest 10% own 44% of the country’s wealth.

The report’s prescriptions challenge assumptions that until recently were considered to be as immovable as the weather. A well-funded national investment bank would modernise Britain’s creaking infrastructure and drive innovation, while a national economic council would design a 10-year plan for the economy.

quote:

What is striking about these demands isn’t just how much more radical they are than only four years ago: it’s who has endorsed them – from the archbishop of Canterbury to business leaders. The IPPR’s polling shows that, from a radical clampdown on tax avoidance to publicly owned investment banks, to borrowing to invest, there is overwhelming support for the junking of the old neoliberal order.

Mobo2000

Medialens gives a good summary of the anti-semitism campaign in the UK press here:

http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2018/876-israel-is-t...

"

In a thoroughly-researched article, writer and academic Gavin Lewis has mapped a deliberate pro-Israel campaign to create a 'moral panic' around the issue of antisemitism. The strategy can be traced all the way back to the horrendous Israeli bombardment of Gaza in the summer of 2014. A UN report estimated that 2,252 Palestinians were killed, around 65 per cent of them civilians. The death toll included 551 children. There was global public revulsion at Israel's war crimes and empathy with their Palestinian victims. Support rose for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement (BDS) which campaigns 'to end international support for Israel's oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law'.

As Lewis observes, BDS came to be regarded more and more as a 'strategic threat' by Israel, and a campaign was initiated in which Israel and its supporters would be presented as the world's real victims. In the UK, the Campaign Against Antisemitism was established during the final month of Israel's 2014 bombardment of Gaza. Pro-Israel pressure groups began to bombard media organisations with supposed statistics about an 'antisemitism crisis', with few news organisations scrutinising the claims.

In particular, as we noted in a media alert in April, antisemitism has been 'weaponised' to attack Corbyn and any prospect of a progressive UK government critical of Israel. Around this time in Gaza, there were weekly 'Great March of Return' protests, with people demanding the right to reclaim ancestral homes in Israel. Many were mown down by Israeli snipers on the border firing into Gaza, with several victims shot in the back as they tried to flee. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, a total of 155 Palestinians were killed in the protests, including 23 children and 3 women. This is part of the brutal ongoing reality for Palestinians.

Recently, much media attention has focused laser-like on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, including 11 associated examples. Labour adopted 7 of these examples, but dropped 4 because of their implication that criticism of Israel was antisemitic. As George Wilmers noted in a piece for Jewish Voice for Labour, Kenneth Stern, the US Attorney who drafted the IHRA wording, has spoken out about the misuse of the definition. It had:

'originally been designed as a "working definition" for the purpose of trying to standardise data collection about the incidence of antisemitic hate crime in different countries. It had never been intended that it be used as legal or regulatory device to curb academic or political free speech. Yet that is how it has now come to be used.'

NDPP

See #215 re: IHRA

josh

Local party votes no confidence in Labour MP over false charges of anti-Semitism.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/local-party-votes-oust-labour-mp-who-faked-anti-semitism-charge

Pages