Tag Archives: Brexit

this is the EU — so take it or leave it… #6. refugees and “The Jungle”

Update: Please note that the original article begins after the asterisk

On the same day I posted the article below, Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) issued the following public statement:

The medical humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) has today announced that it will no longer accept funds from the European Union and Member States, in opposition to their damaging deterrence policies and continued attempts to push people and their suffering away from European shores.

This decision will take effect immediately and will apply to MSF’s projects worldwide.

Continuing:

For months MSF has spoken out about a shameful European response focused on deterrence rather than providing people with the assistance and protection they need,” said Jerome Oberreit, International Secretary General of MSF. “The EU-Turkey deal goes one step further and has placed the very concept of ‘refugee’ and the protection it offers in danger.”

Last week the European Commission unveiled a new proposal to replicate the EU-Turkey logic across more than 16 countries in Africa and the Middle East.

These deals would impose trade and development aid sanctions on countries that do not stem migration to Europe or facilitate forcible returns, rewarding those that do. Among these potential partners are Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan and Afghanistan – four of the top ten* refugee generating countries. [bold emphasis added]

Click here to read MSF’s full statement.

*

“The wind tears down our tents. Whenever there’s a storm, it blows our tents down,” said Mohammad, a 21-year-old man who fled Syria’s war. “This is how we live. Since when do people in modern Europe live like this? They put us in camps without decent food. We just sit around. We count the days. It’s a slow death.”

Mohammad says he is willing to risk his life by taking a ride in a refrigerated truck to Britain. “Maybe I’ll die, but I’m dying here anyway,” he said.

Photo: Malachy Browne licensed under CC BY 2.0

This comes from an article published by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) on February 25th. The same piece continues:

Now, with heightened tension in the Calais area, many asylum seekers believe that “the UK is closed”. It used to cost £5,000 to £6,000, but now, perhaps because of heightened security, it costs at least £10,000. Many people don’t have that much, and they are giving up.

But there are few options open to people living a life in limbo. They wonder whether the fact that the authorities fingerprint people who agree to live in the containers might affect a future request for asylum in Britain.

People are also reticent about moving to the containers because they know they won’t feel free there it is surrounded by a fence, and its residence live under constant surveillance, with rule upon rule marring their daily lives. The authorities have installed new toilets and running water there, but people want to be able to cook, and the fact that they need to register every time they return from the outside world makes it harder to move freely. Visitors, also, are not allowed.

“Look at that. It reminds me of a film I saw back in Sudan about the Nazi detention camps during World War II,” said Omar, a 22-year-old asylum seeker from Darfur. 1

So how did we come to this? Mud-drenched, rat-infested shanty towns only a hundred and fifty miles outside Paris – and closer to London. Places like “the Jungle” where ‘people of colour’, most often fleeing from conflicts initiated by western governments, rather than finding salvation are subjected instead to nonstop harassment by French state and local authorities:

Migrants flee war, repression or living conditions they believe are unacceptable. Their situation in the North of France represents France’s own part in the failure of European policies to welcome refugees; policies that rely on insecurity and the haggling between states as much as they rely on the building of physical and virtual walls to keep migrants at Europe’s borders.

Following the example of most European leaders and heads of states, France’s leaders today are ready to sacrifice and mistreat millions of lives in the vain hope of dissuading future asylum seekers. In Calais, this policy is fanning tensions just as it reinforces perceptions of an increasingly inhospitable France. 2

While the French goal is seemingly to push ‘the problem’ (as they see it) over to Britain, the British, in return, are eager to maintain the status quo – although in fact both governments are in cahoots:

“The French would love to pull out of the arrangement. We’ll be telling people, ‘if we leave the EU the Jungle camp in Calais will move to Folkestone’. That’s not something people want” – senior Downing Street source 3

This was first reported by The Telegraph in an article published on February 8th. It surrounds the government’s claim, subsequently expanded upon by Cameron in a press conference, that France may seize on the opportunity presented by a Brexit to renege on the current bilateral Le Touquet treaty that was signed between the UK and France in 2003 to allow the UK to conduct border controls on the French mainland:

The Prime Minister is to argue that a Brexit would also leave Britain vulnerable to terror attacks and that migrant camps will spring up across the South East of England.

However, fewer than usual were convinced by Cameron’s fevered bout of xenophobic scaremongering, and so the same article continues:

[Fellow Tory and Former Defence Secretary] Liam Fox told the World at One that David Cameron’s claim that leaving the EU could lead to the formation of “Jungle” camps in southern England is a “complete red herring” and “utterly untrue”.

“First of all, the treaty is nothing to do with the EU. This is a treaty that was signed between two sovereign governments because it was in both our interests to have this. And it’s not right to misquote the French interior minister, in fact if I tell you his exact words on 20th October last year, he said ‘calling for the border with the English to be opened is not a reasonable solution.

“It would send a signal to people smugglers and would lead migrants to come in far greater numbers. A humanitarian disaster would ensue, it is a foolhardy path and one the government will not pursue’. So the French government have already ruled this out. 4

Click here to read the full article in The Telegraph.

Of course, the “migrant crisis” (as the media prefers to call it) has many fronts, and relatively few people actually make it as far as Calais. The vast majority instead find themselves held up in rudimentary encampments close to the ports in Italy and Greece where they first landed, or else trapped by newly erected fences as they attempt to trek northwards. Greece, in particular, is the land where many of the victims of our wars (less than 50% are Syrian, others come from Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere including Africa 5) are now forced to shelter.

More recently, we have seen the EU horse-trading with Turkey to swap Syrian “migrants” on a one-for-one basis. The deal, which is almost certainly illegal 6, will do little to remedy the situation and only serve to heighten the suffering of the victims. And yet this refugee crisis can be easily summed up in one image:

In other words, the crisis is not just an outcome of unprecedented (if avoidable) circumstances, but a catastrophic consequence of institutional failure to present a workable plan of action or organise a timely and commensurate response. A measure not only of incompetence, but of how disunited the EU now is. Merkel says come and then don’t come, Cameron responds not in my backyard, and although the Greek government has stayed resolute in its commitment to offer humanitarian assistance, East European partners instead slam the door shut.

Moreover, by supplying minimal assistance and practically no aid for what quickly became a second crisis for Greece, this sustained inaction has exacerbated the pre-existing financial crisis which was more dynamically of the EU’s making. Would it be cynical to conclude that Greece is being punished all over again?

Back in June 2012, non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International, former chairman of BP, former EU Commissioner and current UN’s Special Representative of the Secretary-General for International Migration, Peter Sutherland, was cross-examined by a House of Lords EU home affairs sub-committee investigating global migration. Sutherland, also a member of the Bilderberg steering committee, recommended that the EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states. 7

In arguing for greater immigration, Sutherland feigns an internationalist standpoint and presents a case he knows will to appeal to progressives and those on the political left. However, it is a grave mistake to think that Sutherland is an internationalist when in reality he is a globalist. So his desire to “undermine” the “homogeneity” of member states conceals the deeper desire which is to abolish them altogether. To supplant national sovereignty with supranational governance, and in the process hollow out democracy and replace it with overarching technocracy.

To those like Sutherland, the so-called “migrant crisis” therefore represents another prime opportunity. Fresh grounds to empower EU institutions and to give them greater sway over national governments. Sutherland and likeminded globalists are keenly aware that our road to hell is paved with good intentions: good intentions they are happy to exploit.

*

Incidentally, for those who remain sceptical that this is actually how the Eurogarchs operate then I direct you to consider the views of British economist Bernard Connolly, who worked for many years inside the European Commission as head of the unit responsible for the European Monetary System and monetary policies. Connolly was sacked by the Commission in 1995 over disagreements about the Exchange Rate Mechanism in the lead up to the introduction of the single currency (criticisms expressed in his book The Rotten Heart of Europe: The Dirty War for Europe’s Money).

Afterwards, Connolly became global strategist at Banque AIG (the Paris-based financial arm of AIG) and it was during his eleven year stint working at AIG when in May 2008 he produced a document entitled “Europe – Driver or Driven?” The opening question of which addresses “What Europe Wants?” to which Connolly supplies the answer in the form of four bullet points:

To use global issues as excuses to extend its power:

  • environmental issues: increase control over member countries; advance idea of global governance

  • terrorism: use excuse for greater control over police and judicial issues; increase extent of surveillance

  • global financial crisis: kill two birds (free market; Anglo-Saxon economies) with one stone (Europe-wide regulator; attempts at global financial governance)

  • EMU: create a crisis to force introduction of “European economic government” 8

Here is Bernard Connolly speaking about the moral degeneracy at the heart of the European project:

And here is Connolly giving a more recent interview with Merryn Somerset Webb of MoneyWeek and explaining at greater length why he believes Britain should exit the EU:

*

Additional: The horrific plight of refugees in Turkish camps

Last month, Germany’s Angela Merkel urged EU support for Turkish refugee camps, saying her country intends providing its own.

She praised Turkey for “not only…provid(ing) a safe haven for millions of refugees, but also…provid(ing) them with opportunities and perspectives” – an outrageous perversion of truth.

Her photo-op with former Turkish prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu was willful staged deception, covering up regime crimes against humanity against defenseless, largely Syrian, refugees.

European Council president Donald Tusk called “Turkey…the best example for the whole world for how we should treat refugees. Nobody should lecture Turkey on what to do.”

Amnesty International accused EU officials of ignoring horrific abuses refugees receive in Turkey – facilities more like concentration camps than safe havens, hellholes of mistreatment.

Turkish media reported about 30 boys, aged 8–14, were raped or sexually abused by a Nizip refugee camp worker – the country’s so-called model facility Merkel and Tusk were shown during their visit last month.

What they were allowed to see was polar opposite reality, an illusory snapshot unrelated to horrors refugees face. Opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) lawmaker Elif Dogan Turkman called child abuse in the camp the tip of the iceberg.

writes independent journalist and activist Steve Lendman in an article published on May 24th. (Please note that all links to related articles have been added.)

Lendman continues:

BirGun newspaper journalist Erik Acarer broke the story of mass rapes at Nizip by one camp worker identified only as “EE.” He was indicted and faces longterm imprisonment if convicted.

How many others like him remain to be outed perhaps in all Turkish camps?

On May 24, Fars News reported on Turkish refugee camps “turned into centers for raping children and selling refugees’ body organs.”

BirGun’s Ankara correspondent Yashar Idan reported on mass rapes and sexual abuse at Nizip, organs of a number of refugees sold for profit.

Ankara knows what’s going on in its “model” Nizip camp, yet does virtually nothing to stop it, EE’s indictment an exception proving the rule.

The Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD) in charge of refugee camps turns a blind eye to rape and other crimes against defenseless refugees.

Brussels has no interest in protecting their rights, just keeping as many as possible out of Europe.

Click here to read Lendman’s full article entitled “Turkish Refugee Camps: Unsafe Havens, Children Raped, Organs Sold”.

*

1 From an article entitled “France: Refugees face ‘sow death’ in Calais’ Jungle” published by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) on February 25, 2016. http://www.msf.org/article/france-refugees-face-%E2%80%98slow-death%E2%80%99-calais-jungle

2 From an article entitled “The Calais “Jungle” today: France’s shame” written by Anne Chatelain, who was Deputy Programme Manager, MSF migration Projects and Michaël Neuman, the Director of Studies at MSF – Crash, published by Glasgow Refugee Asylum and Migration Network (GRAMNet) on January 30, 2016. https://gramnet.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/the-calais-jungle-today-frances-shame/ 

The same article was originally published in French Slate Magazine on December 4, 2015 and is accessible here. It was translated into English by Teresa Piacentini. The original text read:

Les migrants fuient la guerre, la répression ou des conditions de vie qu’ils jugent inacceptables. Leur situation dans le Nord de la France n’est que la part hexagonale de l’échec des politiques européennes d’accueil des réfugiés, qui misent sur la précarité, sur le marchandage entre États comme sur l’érection de murs, physiques ou virtuels, pour maintenir les migrants aux frontières de l’Europe.

Aujourd’hui, les dirigeants français sont, à l’instar de la majorité des chefs d’États et de gouvernements de l’Union européenne, prêts à sacrifier et à maltraiter des milliers de vies dans le vain espoir de dissuader les futurs candidats à l’exil. À Calais même, cette politique accroît les tensions comme elle renforce la perception d’une France toujours plus inhospitalière.

Note that: MSF – Crash (The Centre de reflexion sur l’action et les savoirs humanitaires) was created by Médecins Sans Frontières in 1999. Its objective is to encourage debate and critical reflexion on the humanitarian practices of the association.

3 First reported in an article entitled “Britain ‘faces influx of 50,000 asylum seekers’ if it leaves the European Union” written by Peter Dominiczak and Michael Wilkinson, published in The Telegraph on February 8, 2016. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

4

“This is a complete red herring, it is utterly untrue that the French are considering it, it would not lead to a major change and it’s a great pity that those who want to remain in the European Union are not making the case for project Europe, for supranational control that they presumably believe in and they are engaging in what I think are ridiculous scaremongering tactics.

“It is a treaty, which is signed between two sovereign nations who happen to be in the European Union at the time, but it was signed because it was in both countries’ interest.

Ibid.

5 

6 https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2016/04/turkey-illegal-mass-returns-of-syrian-refugees-expose-fatal-flaws-in-eu-turkey-deal/ 

7 From an article entitled “EU should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN migration chief” written by Brian Wheeler, published by BBC news on June 21, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

8 From a report entitled “Europe – Driver or Driven?” written by Bernard Connolly, published by Banque AIG for ACI Congress on May 30, 2008. https://www.scribd.com/doc/271676558/Bernard-Connolly-Europe#fullscreen

1 Comment

Filed under analysis & opinion, Britain, France, Turkey

this is the EU — so take it or leave it… #4. Plan B: or what we are not being offered

We should reject wholeheartedly the fudge that David Cameron came back from Brussels with. He is asking the public to support staying within a reformed Europe, but he has deformed Europe in the process of creating this fudge.

says Economist and former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis in response to the question “How should British voters who are dissatisfied with the EU view the referendum?”

He continues:

Yet at the same time we should also reject the Eurosceptic view that Britain should leave the EU, but stay within the single market. I have a lot of respect for Tory Eurosceptics with a Burkean view of the sovereignty of national parliaments. The problem is that they also support staying in the single market. This is an incoherent proposition: it’s impossible to stay in the single market and keep your sovereignty. 1

Which is surely a noteworthy admission (hence the bold emphasis) from the person most prominent in the left-wing half of the campaign to stay.

Click here to read more of the transcribed interview with Yanis Varoufakis in which discusses the launch of his new ‘Democracy in Europe’ movement (DiEM25).

*

When Michael Chessum, a major organiser of the pro-Remain ‘Another Europe is Possible’ (AEiP) movement, is questioned about what concrete ‘changes’ he would like to see in EU, he simply dodges the question. Chessum’s behaviour generalises. To my knowledge, not a single supporter of Remain has presented a satisfying answer to the question of how we are supposed to go about reforming the EU. Even Yanis Varoufakis during his recent ‘Lunch with the Financial Times’ interview confessed that in reality the EU isn’t going to be reformed to anywhere near the extent the Remainers are hoping for (attempts to reform ‘will probably end in failure like all the best intentions’, he claimed). Even Remain supporter Ed Rooksby can write on his blog about how he is ‘not particularly convinced by arguments emanating from [AEiP] in relation to the possibility of transforming EU institutions in a leftist direction’. How is a new, reformed EU possible? How can we change it to break from the Washington Consensus? The answers are, worryingly, not forthcoming.

writes Elliot Murphy in a recently published Counterpunch article in which he deliberates on all sides of the EU referendum campaign.

Murphy’s case is not so much that a ‘Left Exit’ can be delivered, but that ‘Left Remain’ is replete with “airy-fairy proposals” and devoid of “any concrete solutions”. That, as he rightly asserts:

In theory, another anything is possible: Another New Zealand, Another Skelmersdale, Another Isla Nublar, Another Tamriel. It is not as if another EU is inherently unreachable, but rather that without any posited, realistic steps to achieve it, the hopes of the Remain camp will quickly dissolve after June 23rd, no matter which side wins. 2

More from Murphy later.

*

On February 18th, an assorted group of prominent and not so prominent leftists including Caroline Lucas PM (Green), Cat Smith MP (Labour shadow minister for women), Marina Prentoulis (Syriza UK), Kate Hudson (Left Unity), Michael Mansfield and Nick Dearden put their names to a letter that appeared in the Guardian outlining reasons to get solidly behind what they describe as “a radical ‘in’ vote” to Europe:

Our campaign will put the case for staying in the EU independently of Cameron and big business, opposing any part of a “renegotiation” that attacks workers’, migrants’ or human rights. We will combine campaigning for an in vote with arguing for an alternative economic model, maintaining European citizens’ rights to live and work across the EU, and for far-reaching democratic reforms of European institutions. 3

Behind the initiative was a newly-fledged campaign group Another Europe is Possible that one of the lesser known signatories above, Luke Cooper, lecturer in politics at Anglia Ruskin University, helped to establish. In a related piece published a fortnight earlier [Feb 4th], Cooper prepared the ground for the campaign launch on the openDemocracy website. Titled “A different Europe or bust”, Cooper of course makes the case for staying, although he is also quick to concede:

None of us support the status quo; we all recognise radical institutional and political change is needed. Most of us also know, however, that a British exit would leave workers even more vulnerable to a Tory government and would not be a step towards the social Europe we believe in.

Continuing:

Rising nationalist sentiment, the structurally embedded neoliberalism of Eurozone institutions and the new downturn in the global economy all create a significant challenge for how to go about constructing an alternative. Taken together they require the left to construct a political alternative that is, firstly, bold and radical enough to address the systemic causes of the current crises and, secondly, rejects the illusion that a retreat into competing protectionist states offers even a partial answer. 4

What Cooper and others on the left are advocating then is a fresh start to Europe – a plan B:

[B]reaking with austerity and constructing a European new deal based on ecologically sustainable investment in jobs and growth. 5

As a cautious but committed internationalist, I have a great deal of sympathy with their position. Undeniably Europe needs a fresh start founded upon an economic ‘new deal’ that can halt a disastrous economic decline and rescue the poorest partner nations. To be nitpicking, however, such vitally needed investment must be injected into infrastructure projects and to boost productive capacity rather than less intangibly into “jobs and growth”. Without productive activity, creation of “jobs and growth”, irrespective of ‘sustainability’, will not secure long-term economic prosperity.

But the significant and most probably insurmountable difficulty is here comes in the shape of the EU institutions themselves. For these undemocratic institutions are not merely disinclined to make the sorts of ‘new deal’ investments required, but staunchly antithetical to ‘bailouts’ of every kind other than those needed to keep afloat the “too big to fail” banks.

Moreover, without a fleshed out programme of demands for genuine reform, these sorts of advocacy for ‘a better Europe’, are dangerous exercises in building castles in the air. For whose purpose does it really serve to say that although the EU is a monster (as Varoufakis has many times described it) we might coax it into better behaving itself when we have literally no firm ideas on how to force a change? Worse, since beneath the veneer of wishful optimism runs a deep vein of fear-mongering hardly less noxious than in the official Tory-led ‘Remain’ campaign:

A vote to ‘leave’ will not create the political space for a socialist Europe. The fragmentation of the EU would be on a right-wing, intolerant and nationalist basis. It would be a Europe of Le Pen, Farage, Orban and others on the right. 6

Taken from a strident and hectoring post from Left Unity in support of the Another Europe is Possible campaign. The same post ends with words from Felicity Dowling, Left Unity’s Principal Speaker, who says:

‘We stand with those who have most to lose in the EU referendum campaign: with the children of workers who have lost child benefit, with the migrants who face further unjust vilification as the debate rages.

‘We stand with the tens of thousands fleeing war in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.

‘We stand together with British and European workers.’

It follows by omission (presumably) that whoever wishes to leave, therefore, does NOT stand with the refugees or the British workers. That by default we stand in opposition to both. Indeed, if judged by Dowling’s list then our dereliction is so grievous that a vote for Brexit is tantamount to voting National Front…! 7

As reader Liz Langrick wrote in a heartfelt response to that Another Europe letter in the Guardian:

Your pro-EU stance seems to suggest that leaving the EU is a preoccupation of the Tory right and all voters of the centre-left should be pro-EU because it somehow represents progressive politics and is a vague force for good. But this is a huge betrayal of the sections of society you purport to speak for.

Adding:

Quite clearly an unlimited supply of low-skilled labour – which is what freedom of movement represents – makes it ever easier for employers to offer zero-hours or insecure employment, both for migrants and for British low-paid. This is benefiting only business owners not known for their public-mindedness or even paying any tax. How can anyone on the left be in favour of a system that perpetuates this? Any improvements to workers’ rights the EU may have secured have been and will continue to be fundamentally undermined by this, and arguing that we can change this from within is pie in the sky – as the difficulties Cameron’s negotiations have encountered clearly show.

And aside from the economic impacts on the poorer sections of society, it’s ironic that those on the left, particularly Labour MPs, support membership of an organisation that is so deeply undemocratic and undermines the role of ordinary people in the law-making/representation process.

So please stop clinging to the idea that the EU is progressive and therefore we must stay in at all costs. The EU is fundamentally driven by the demands of Germany and France. 8

To which I simply wish to add a single, small, but important, caveat. The EU is not driven much if at all by the demands of either the French or Germans, presuming that we are speaking of the French and German people (and if it were, then it would bear a better semblance to democracy). It is instead an apparatus serving corporate interests, the most powerful of which are the major banks. So for “Germany and France” it is better to read: Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas and Société Générale.

*

I shall conclude with a more extended quote from Elliot Murphy’s excellent Counterpunch article which details a few of the many intractable obstructions to this envisaged  “Plan B” – meaning reform in favour of social justice, labour rights and a genuinely more equal society – for the European Union:

This groundswell of support for Remain across substantial parts of the Left is hard to square with the facts. State aid to declining industries, along with renationalisation, are not permitted by current EU laws (under directive 2012/34/EU), and any mildly progressive government which managed to get elected in 2020 would be hindered from the outset by the EU. Considerable reforms of the energy market would also be illegal under EU directives 2009/72EU and 2009/73/EU. Collective bargaining is becoming much weaker across the EU, most vividly in France and Germany.

McDonnell’s plans for People’s Quantitative Easing? Outlawed by Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The series of anti-trade union laws introduced in Britain over the past few decades? The EU has no qualms with these whatsoever, showing no interest in providing even modest forms of protection for workers.

As the Labour Leave campaign points out, the EU would also outlaw an end to NHS outsourcing, tougher measures on tax avoidance, and general improvements to workers’ rights. The soft Left’s talk of international solidarity and the brotherhood of man in relation to the EU is absurd, especially as it continues to drive forward deeply militaristic and undemocratic (or rather, anti-democratic) policies. The EU is, after all, one the world’s major post-war imperialist projects, boasting an inherently and aggressively exploitative relation with the global South. The entirety of the EU parliament could be filled with McDonnells and Iglesias’s and no substantial reform would be forthcoming: The parliament is an institution purely of amendment and all power lies with the civil servants and the unelectable Commission.

And while Cameron, Johnson, Gove and Osborne are not the most admirable men in the world, they cannot be blamed for everything: It is the EU which has been hindering a just and lasting resolution to the refugee problem, not the UK state. A Left argument for Leave is firmly grounded not in the Left Remain camp’s ‘politics of hope’ (Owen Jones’s terminology), but rather in a well-earned sense of pessimism. As Chris Hedges recently told Vice: ‘This kind of mania for hope, that has infected even the Left, is a political pacifier. You know, everybody is addicted to these happy thoughts, and that keeps us complacent’. 9

Click here to read Elliot Murphy’s full article.

*

Additional: Bilderberg and Brexit

This year’s Bilderberg meeting is about to kick-off in Dresden today, and in one of Charlie Skelton’s preliminary sketches published on Monday [June 6th], he speculates on how the men behind the police cordons, the “the high priests of globalisation” as former attendee Will Hutton described them, are viewing the prospect of Brexit:

“A disaster for everyone” is how Henri de Castries [the Chairman of the group], the boss of AXA and a director of HSBC, describes Brexit. But in particular, it is a disaster for his banking and big business colleagues at Bilderberg. Thomas Enders, the CEO of Airbus, who sits on Bilderberg’s steering committee – the group’s governing body – said, in a recent interview with CNBC, that his industry would be “lobbying” against Brexit. […]

Goldman Sachs has two senior representatives on Bilderberg’s steering committee: James A. Johnson, a board member of the bank, and Robert Zoellick, the chairman of Goldman Sachs’ board of international advisors. We know from Charity Commission accounts that Goldman Sachs, along with BP, is one of the key funders of the group, and we also know that they’ve been pumping “a substantial six-figure sum” into the Remain campaign. And Goldman Sachs doesn’t spend money lightly. The Remain campaign is clearly close to whatever they have instead of a heart.

For Bilderberg, as for Goldman Sachs, the idea that there might be any kind of push-back against globalisation is a horrific one. I suspect we’ll glimpse some frowning faces behind the tinted glass as the limousines start rolling up on Thursday.

As Skelton concludes:

The prospect of Brexit “frightens me”, admit Ken Jacobs, the head of Lazard, and another member of Bilderberg’s inner circle. Not much frightens these people. Only two things: sunlight and Brexit. 10

Click here to read Charlie Skelton’s full article.

*

1 From an transcribed interview with EUROPP’s editor Stuart Brown entitled “Yanis Varoufakis: “The UK should stay in the EU to fight tooth and nail against the EU’s anti-democratic institutions” , published by the London School of Economics (LSE) on February 22, 2016. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/02/22/yanis-varoufakis-the-uk-should-stay-in-the-eu-to-fight-tooth-and-nail-against-the-eus-anti-democratic-institutions/ 

2 From an article entitled “Another Tamriel is Possible: Brexit Proposals vs Solutions” written by Elliot Murphy, published in Counterpunch on June 7, 2016. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/07/another-tamriel-is-possible-brexit-proposals-vs-solutions/ 

3 From an article entitled “Divisions on the left over the benefits of staying in the EU” published in the Guardian on February 18, 2016. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/18/divisions-on-the-left-over-the-benefits-of-staying-in-the-eu

4 From an article entitled “A different Europe or bust” written by Luke Cooper

5 Ibid.

6 http://leftunity.org/another-europe-is-possible-left-unity-and-the-eu-referendum/ 

7 Here is my own comment which you can also read by following the link:

With due respect, the choice as you present it is a false one. Firstly, voting to stay inside the EU will automatically mean assenting to Plan A – there is no Plan B. On the other hand, there are many reasons to vote to leave the EU (not mentioned above) that have nothing whatsoever to do with building walls and a fortress Europe – which is something happening in the extant EU. As is the financial ruin of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. And as is TTIP.

The EU is a technocracy run at the behest of the corporations and big finance that urgently needs to be undone. The current disintegration of Europe is happening largely because of policies of the EU. Certainly the nations of Europe must survive, but if this to happen then it may be necessary for the EU to perish.

Posted on February 24th 2016.

http://leftunity.org/the-answer-to-the-eu-referendum-plan-b-for-europe/#comment-802232

8 A response appended to the main article entitled “Divisions on the left over the benefits of staying in the EU” published in the Guardian on February 18, 2016. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/18/divisions-on-the-left-over-the-benefits-of-staying-in-the-eu

9 From an article entitled “Another Tamriel is Possible: Brexit Proposals vs Solutions” written by Elliot Murphy, published in Counterpunch on June 7, 2016. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/07/another-tamriel-is-possible-brexit-proposals-vs-solutions/ 

10 From an article entitled “Bilderberg 2016: We can expect desperate lobbying against Brexit from Big Business” written by Charlie Skelton, published in the International Business Times on June 6, 2016. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bilderberg-2016-we-can-expect-desperate-lobbying-against-brexit-big-business-1563898

2 Comments

Filed under analysis & opinion, Britain, Charlie Skelton

this is the EU — so take it or leave it… #2. TTIP and other “free trade” deals

Irish MEP Luke “Ming” Flanagan visits the TTIP reading room where he can read texts that have already been agreed on – in the language of the EU this constitutes “democratic oversight”. He is not allowed a camera or tape recorder:

*

The agreement we have secured means that the EU Member States will fully support the European Commission’s recent trade strategy. Central to this strategy are ambitious and comprehensive trade deals that will substantially boost the UK’s growth and economic security. […]

Concluding all the trade deals already underway could ultimately be worth in total more than £20 billion a year to UK GDP. These include the UK’s top trade priority: an agreement between the EU and the US (the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), which alone could add £10 billion to UK GDP. 1

Taken from “The Best Of Both Worlds”; the government policy document that explains Cameron’s negotiated deal with the EU. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) features centrally in the new arrangements.

The first point to note in the extract reprinted above is that a claim that TTIP “will substantially boost the UK’s growth and economic security” is certainly bogus. Long-term economic projections of any kind are notoriously unreliable under the best of circumstances, but here we have a far from impartial assessment. Indeed, as its title “The Best of Both Worlds” makes blatant, this is a sales pitch.

Embedded below is an excellent short film produced by wikileaks about the American-led “free trade agreements” collectively known as the 3Ts: namely Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the lesser known Trade in Services Agreement (TISA). Quite literally everyone should watch this film:

In reality, these treaties have little to nothing to do with facilitating trade in any ordinary sense, but enable a greater transfer of power away from democratic government and into the hands of the unelected corporatocracy. Operating at their heart is a parallel judicial system known as the Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), which is conducted on the basis of secret tribunals open solely to the transnational corporations (our governments do not have access).

This legal arrangement permits companies to sue states for anything that adversely affects their profits. Thus, under the rules of TTIP (the precise details of which remain as a closely guarded secret), national governments will lose jurisdiction to a kangaroo court that sits in judgement of all impediments to profit-making. Paring back regulations under the guise of “free trade” will thereby rig the market still more in the favour of a few special interests.

Such a thoroughgoing dismantlement of regulations has tremendous ramifications both for individuals and for our communities. It threatens the environment, our education system, healthcare (the NHS is especially endangered) and even privacy. In short, if ratified the 3Ts will impact the lives of all of those who live in signatory nations (and that includes nearly all developed countries). The EU is committed to signing two of these treaties – TTIP and also TISA.

Here are a few extracts from a detailed analysis of TTIP published by Der Spiegel International and entitled “Corporation Carte Blanche: Will US-EU Trade Become Too Free?”:

Lori Wallach had but 10 minutes to speak when she stepped up to podium inside Room 405 at George Washington University, located not too far away from the White House. Her audience was made up of delegates currently negotiating the trans-Atlantic free trade agreement between the United States and the European Union.

They had already spent hours listening to presentations by every possible lobbying group — duty bound to hear myriad opinions. But when Wallach, a trade expert for the consumer protection group Public Citizen, took the stage, people suddenly started paying attention. The 49-year-old Harvard lawyer, after all, is a key figure in international trade debates.

“The planned deal will transfer power from elected governments and civil society to private corporations,” she said, warning that the project presents a threat of entirely new dimensions. [bold emphasis added]

The same article, which was published more than two years ago, then outlines how TTIP will impact our societies:

After the third round of negotiations, an unusually broad alliance of anti-globalization groups, NGOs, environmental and consumer protection groups, civil rights groups and organized labor is joining forces to campaign against TTIP.

These critics have numerous concerns about the treaty – including their collective fear that the convergence of standards will destroy important gains made over the years in health and nutrition policy, environmental protection and employee rights. They argue the treaty will make it easier for corporations to turn profits at the public’s expense in areas like water supply, health or education. It would also clear the path for controversial technologies like fracking or for undesired food products like growth hormone-treated meat to make their way to Europe. Broadly worded copyrights would also restrict access to culture, education and science. They also believe it could open the door to comprehensive surveillance. 2

Click here to read the full article in Der Spiegel.

More recently [Feb 22nd], the Guardian published an article exposing how “TTIP deal poses ‘real and serious risk’ to NHS, says leading QC”:

The controversial transatlantic trade deal set to be agreed this year would mean that privatisation of elements of the NHS could be made irreversible for future governments wanting to restore services to public hands, according to a new legal analysis.

The legal advice was prepared by one of the UK’s leading QCs on European law for the Unite trade union, which will reveal on Monday that it has been holding talks with the government about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal between Europe and the US.

Unite believes the government has been keeping Britain in the dark over the impact of the deal and argues the NHS should be excluded from the trade deal. The government dismissed the idea that TTIP poses a threat as “irresponsible and false”.

TTIP would give investors new legal rights, which extend beyond both UK and EU law as well as NHS contracts, according to Michael Bowsher QC, a former chair of the Bar Council’s EU law committee who was tasked by Unite to prepare the advice.

Bowsher said he had concluded that the deal poses “a real and serious risk” to future UK government decision making regarding the NHS.

“We consider that the solution to the problems TTIP poses to the NHS – and which is likely to provide the greatest protection – is for the NHS to be excluded from the agreement by way of a blanket exception contained within the main text of TTIP,” Bowsher said. 3

Click here to read the full article published in the Guardian.

I disagree, however. Ad hoc exclusions are entirely insufficient. TTIP is so dreadful that we should fight to stop it clean in its tracks.

Voting to remain, gives assent to Cameron’s negotiated EU agreement as summarised in the “The Best Of Both Worlds” policy document and everything contained within it. Since TTIP is central to the agreement, a vote to remain will then be reinterpreted as a signal of our tacit approval to go ahead with TTIP.

If, on the other hand, we vote to leave the EU, then this automatically keeps Britain out of TTIP and potentially nips TTIP in the bud altogether. There are, of course, other “trade deals” in the pipeline, and we need to be committed to blocking them all. First and foremost though, the target must be TTIP.

*

Additional:

On May 3rd, Press TV invited Paul Craig Roberts, the former Assistant Secretary of US Treasury, to debate with Sean O’Grady, the Finance Editor of The Independent over TTIP and the other “free trade agreements”:

*

1 From paragraph 2.62–3 on p. 23–24 of “The Best Of Both Worlds: the United Kingdom’s special status in a reformed European Union”, published by UK government in February 2016 to “satisf[y] the duty to provide information set out in section 6 of the European Union Referendum Act 2015”.

2 From an article entitled “Corporation Carte Blanche: Will US-EU Trade Become Too Free?” written by Michaela Schiessi, published in Der Spiegel on January 23, 2014. http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/criticism-grows-over-investor-protections-in-transatlantic-trade-deal-a-945107.html

3 From an article entitled “TTIP deal poses ‘real and serious risk’ to NHS, says leading QC” written by Ben Quinn, published in the Guardian on February 22, 2016. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/22/ttip-deal-real-serious-risk-nhs-leading-qc

1 Comment

Filed under analysis & opinion, Britain, neo-liberalism

this is the EU – so take it or leave it… #1. a leftist case for Brexit

The question of Brexit contains many interrelated issues that are both complex and far-reaching. I have therefore decided to present a sequence of shorter articles tackling specific topics. This one is a general plea to wavering leftists…

Four weeks today on June 23rd, Britain goes to the polls to decide on whether our collective future lies inside or outside the European Union. Whatever the outcome, our decision will very likely reshape the political landscape, not only inside Britain but also beyond our borders, for decades to come.

I have been trying to construct a short article outlining my own position favouring Brexit for many weeks now. But shortly after I begin, the doubts set in. Not doubts about leaving the EU, but doubts about how best to broach a frank and honest leftist argument in its favour?

At the heart of this difficulty is the nature of the debate itself. A debate – and I use the term loosely – that is necessarily being held at breakneck pace due to Cameron’s call for such a snap referendum and one wholly dominated by the most loudmouthed opinions of his Conservative Party…

In the blue corner “call me Dave” Cameron and in the other blue corner “The Boris” Johnson. Two of Bullingdon’s finest slugging it out for king, country and globalisation. It’s a spat that is about as phoney as any WWE wrestling bout and (for me at least) an even bigger turn-off.

So let’s be clear, neither Cameron, well-remembered for reneging on his “cast iron” Lisbon Treaty referendum pledge back in 2006 1, nor Johnson, who always hedges his bets on Europe, are fighting for what they believe in. They are not men of actual conviction, but political opportunists, and I am very far from alone in believing that Johnson’s lead role in the ‘Leave’ campaign was always part of a “choreographed game” stage-managed by Downing Street 2 (so desperate to maintain a modicum of cohesion within the warring Tory party ranks but also determined to win the vote).

Yet rather than forcing our politicians to face up to a fuller debate, the media mostly lends its considerable powers to keeping it shut down. Deflecting public attention away from the important issues and persuading us instead to fixate on the latest posturing of each side’s leading personalities as well as the nonsense they are endlessly spouting. And since there are deeply divisive and unpleasant characters talking rubbish on both sides, I strongly advise the undecided to ignore all the grimacing and the cacophony of half-truths, outright lies and utterly risible innuendo – al-Baghdadi cares not one jot about your vote and neither does Vladimir Putin!

Which brings me to the next difficulty faced by all left-leaning proponents of Brexit, and this involves recognising and surmounting a peculiar, since unfamiliar, sense of shame. The shame one feels at letting the side down. That we are apparently cheering on the nationalist cause when we ought instead, by rights, to adhere to a more internationalist stance. We even hear the ugly accusation raised against advocates of Brexit that, presumably by virtue of sharing this single opinion with holders of entirely obnoxious political outlooks, we may likewise be adopting an inherently a racist position. Which is another desperate slur intended to suck the air out of any serious debate over the essential and quite legitimate questions about independence and sovereignty.

That said, there is also a genuine concern that needs addressing, although in order to grapple with it sincerely we must first issue a full admission of guilt. So here it is: the left has been duped. It became hooked on a pipedream after mistaking the European project for an antidote to Thatcherism. Having been, for many years, a staunch advocate of “Europe” (the project not the geographical region), regrettably I was one of the many who were duped.

For whereas true internationalism – the internationalism of the old left – is predicated on an political ideal of extending democratic freedom throughout all nations of the world, the EU was deliberately constructed to function as a constraint against those democracies. And it is baloney to claim (as many do) that the EU “pools” our sovereignties, when in truth it erodes them down to nothing. This is the raison d’être of globalism as opposed to internationalism.

“The leftwing case for Brexit is strategic and clear,” writes Paul Mason in a Guardian opinion piece published Monday 16th, adding:

The EU is not – and cannot become – a democracy. Instead, it provides the most hospitable ecosystem in the developed world for rentier monopoly corporations, tax-dodging elites and organised crime.

Mason, the former Economics Editor for BBC’s Newsnight and Channel 4 news, who more recently resigned to become an independent voice, continues:

Its central bank is committed, by treaty, to favour deflation and stagnation over growth. State aid to stricken industries is prohibited. The austerity we deride in Britain as a political choice is, in fact, written into the EU treaty as a non-negotiable obligation. So are the economic principles of the Thatcher era. A Corbyn-led Labour government would have to implement its manifesto in defiance of EU law. 3

I have strongly criticised Paul Mason for fence-sitting on related issues in an earlier article, but here, in three tightly constructed paragraphs, he makes the most succinct and, as he says, “principled leftwing case for Brexit” I have yet to read. And yet, and yet… Mason then swivels on a sixpence to reverse his position, saying:

Now here’s the practical reason to ignore it. In two words: Boris Johnson.

Overall Mason’s article is an impressive one and I very much encourage everyone to read it in full. Like Mason, I too am deeply concerned that a person as slippery as Boris Johnson might soon hold the reins of power in Westminster, but then Johnson has been lined up for succession long before Cameron felt so electorally cornered by UKIP that he bought victory in the General Election at the cost of this unwanted (from his position) EU referendum.

As a self-confessed pro-Brexit leftist, Mason’s broader concern is that leaving the EU now may inadvertently supply ammunition to our enemies. This is a valid point and one that Mason rightly raises, however, I find little reason to dwell on it. Do we cut off our nose to spite our face? Or, more specifically, to dent the prospects of a clownish would-be Tory leader, who seems in any case to be Teflon-coated – and frankly is Johnson actually any more dangerous than Cameron and their other Bullingdon buddy Osborne – a leadership rival – who together head ‘Remain’?.

Interestingly, when Mason concludes his piece saying “the political conditions for a left Brexit are absent today”, he has already somewhat undermined that position in the preceding paragraph:

The EU’s economic failure is fuelling racism and the ultra right. Boris Johnson’s comparison of the EU with the Third Reich was facile. The more accurate comparison is with the Weimar Republic: a flawed democracy whose failures fuelled the rise of fascism. And this swing to the far right prompts the more basic dilemma: do I even want to be part of the same electorate as millions of closet Nazis in mainland Europe?

It is as if he cannot keep a lid on his own frustration – anti-EU passions that he had even greater difficulty holding in check during last week’s [Thurs 21st] appearance on BBC Question Time:

Click here to read Paul Mason’s full article

The trouble is that the left have been caught on the hop. As the EU dropped its liberal veil, a great many of its supporters hesitated and keep a respectful silence. This failure to react opened the way for right-wing forces to gain much of the ground the liberal left once occupied. Two years ago, back in May 2014, I posted an article entitled “the rise of UKIP calls for new strategies from the left”. Unfortunately, such new strategies are still to be properly delineated by the mainstream left, which makes the need more urgent than ever before

It is unlikely that we will have another opportunity to vote on our EU membership in the foreseeable future (and given that the EU appears bent upon its own destruction perhaps we may never get one) and so rather than leaving it to the paleoconservatives and ultra-right to campaign for Brexit, isn’t the better strategy to refrain from playing politics, and stand firm for what we actually believe? If we find ourselves disenfranchised and alienated by the Eurocrats in Brussels then we should speak up and boost the left campaign for Brexit (as Corbyn almost certainly would too, if he hadn’t been muzzled by the PLP 4). If enough of us do, we will steal the thunder of our enemy.

Traditionally, the left in Britain – the democratic socialists and not the social democrat usurpers of “The Third Way” – have consistently and solidly opposed the EU’s monolithic and anti-democratic institutions and their bureaucratic takeover of our society. So what has changed?

*

Additional: a background on Brexit

When the UK first joined ‘Europe’ in January 1973, the decision had been a purely executive one; the agreement signed behind our backs by the Conservative government of Edward Heath. But then the European Economic Community or EEC (as the organisation was originally known) was merely a burgeoning association of trading nations, and usually known more simply as the “Common Market”. So this was not a change affecting our rights or our constitution, certainly not to begin with, but apparently little more than an expanded free trade zone – and after all, the UK were already founder members of the European Free Trade Association or EFTA, along with Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland. The United Kingdom along with Denmark only ceased to be EFTA members when both then joined the EEC in 1973.

In these early days of EEC membership, the British public was just as divided on the issue as they are today, and, for the most part, this division in opinion fell along the traditional political fault-line of left against right. Back in the 1970s, however, it was socialists and trades unionists who, concerned by the top-down rule of bureaucrats in Brussels, were the most outspoken opponents. It was then much harder to find opposition within the rank and file of either Conservatives or Liberals (the Liberals being the only party to remain consistently “pro-European”).

A few years on, and with the 1975 referendum, the British electorate were at last given the chance to formally express their support or otherwise for the European project. Not to vote on whether or not to join, of course, since by then it was already a done deal, but on whether or not the UK should leave. So a loaded question obviously, and one further biased due to emphasis on the purportedly grave economic risks of an exit. Thus, with the deck fully stacked in favour of EEC membership, the nation went out to vote, and hardly surprisingly chose to stay put. 67% voting in favour, out of a 65% turnout.

But then something strange happened. Gradually, and throughout the following decade, the political poles were shifted around. The left becoming increasingly comfortable with the idea of forming greater ties with our European partners, whilst the conservative right have grown ever more concerned and disaffected. The reason for these shifts actually aren’t hard to understand at all.

Thatcher loathed Europe, although what she really despised was the worker rights and other guarantees of social justice being snuck in through Europe’s backdoor. As a consequence, her almost rabid hostility towards European federalism (federalism being the big new F-word of the 1980s) being almost sufficient in itself to bring many on the left on board when it came to recognising the virtues of the fledgling union. Surely if this was the only route to achieving social justice then it was better to have more of it. Yet even so, a few on the left held on to their previous mistrust of Brussels. Tony Benn offers perhaps the best example, having remained unflinching in his objection to Europe’s inherent lack of democratic process. And here it is worth remembering that the “No” campaign of the ’75 referendum had been backed not only by Benn by other significant members on the left wing of the Labour Party, including cabinet ministers Michael Foot, Peter Shore and Barbara Castle.

More recently, the EU (which was formally established to replace the EEC after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, and again without any national referendum in Britain) has revealed how the organisation’s fundamentally neo-liberal credentials never went away. Barely disguising its own shameful part in the agonies of “austerity” now being foisted on Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy, with these measures insisted upon by “the Troika” of which two of its three parts are the EU itself. These actions serve to highlight what many progressives have failed to understand (and for many years, myself included), which is that the EU was never intended as a socialist project at all, or even an inherently ‘liberal’ one. Rather, and primarily, it has been a vehicle for concentrating power to the advantage of an already powerful financial and corporate elite. Which is why some on the left have remained just as strongly opposed to the EU as many on the right.

The following is NOT taken from UKIP’s manifesto:

Membership of the European Community/Union has contributed substantially to the unprecedented decline of industries in Britain, mass long-term unemployment and inability to trade on the world market. Besides huge contributions to the EU budget we have to purchase high priced food, thanks to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Because of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) we no longer have control over the fishing grounds around Britain with consequent loss of most of the fishing industry and fish stocks and pollution of the sea. Membership of the EU has entailed a switch away from taxing income and profit to consumption through the imposition of VAT. The burden of these costs and taxation is mainly carried by ordinary people especially those with low incomes or the unemployed.

The Treaty on European Union, Euro-federalism and EU Constitution will guarantee further decline as a result of which Britain will become an offshore area of a supranational state. The aim of European Union to be consolidated through the EU Constitution is to have its own military forces and be ruled in secret by unelected governors of an unaccountable European Central Bank, an appointed Commission and committees such as the European Council. These bodies consist of a majority of representatives of member states not answerable to our Government, Parliament or electorate and would be taking decisions which may not be in the interests of Britain.

Rather, it is taken from the “Statement of Aims” of a lesser know left-wing organisation called the Campaign Against Euro-federalism or CAEF. A statement that continues as follows:

Corporatism and fascism are also menaces which emanate from the drive to a European Union. Racism has been encouraged by the Schengen agreement which is now part of EU law with parallel legislation on immigration and asylum in Britain.

Yes, not everyone who opposes the EU is automatically against international cooperation. Nor is everyone who opposes the open border Schengen Agreement a rabid nationalist.

In any case, internationalism, as CAEF correctly point out, is quite different to European federalism. Internationalism involves the strengthening ties between sovereign nations, rather than the more aggressive dissolving away of borders between them. And European federalism further undermines the independence of the people of those nations (its member states) by passing executive powers that were held by democratically elected governments into the technocratic hands of an appointed commission. The EU – as it exists, rather than how we might like it to be – is better understood, not as a grand project for furthering international cooperation, but as one of the vital organs of a fully globalised world.

CAEF write:

Internationalism means the right to self determination and national democracy for all nations and nation states of the world which includes close relations with our friends in EU states and co-operating with peoples in all countries of the world.

And hear, hear to that!

The passage above is reprinted from an article posted in May 2014 entitled “the rise of UKIP calls for new strategies from the left”

*

1

In an article for the Sun on 26 September 2007, Cameron wrote: “Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations. No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.” […]

Barry Legg, co-chair of the Eurosceptic Bruges Group, said: “David Cameron needs to come clean with the British people: why is he breaking his pledge to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?”Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, told Sky News: “It looks as if that cast-iron guarantee has become very rusty indeed. I don’t think he’s being entirely honest with the British people.”

From an article entitled “David Cameron to shed ‘cast iron’ pledge on Lisbon Treaty” written by Nicholas Watt and Patrick Wintour, published in the Guardian on November 3, 2009. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/03/david-cameron-lisbon-treaty-referendum

2

Many of Mr Johnson’s closest allies are shocked that he made the decision to campaign for out.

One close political ally as recently as Wednesday said he believed speculation over Mr Johnson backing “Leave” was a “choreographed game” managed by Downing Street.

Although a committed Eurosceptic since working as Brussels correspondent for this newspaper in his twenties, Mr Johnson has always been known among friends as a Europhile and internationalist.

From an article entitled “How Boris Johnson came down on the side of a Brexit” written by Peter Dominiczak, published in The Telegraph on February 21, 2016. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson/12167603/How-Boris-Johnson-came-down-on-the-side-of-a-Brexit.html

3 From an article entitled “The leftwing case for Brexit (one day)” written by Paul Mason, published in the Guardian on May 16, 2016. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/16/brexit-eu-referendum-boris-johnson-greece-tory

4

During the Labour leadership campaign, Corbn said he was ready to join an ‘Out’ campaign if David Cameron trades away workers’ rights, environmental protection and fails to crack down on Brussels-backed tax havens.

Late on Sunday evening Corbyn began assembling his shadow cabinet. The key position of shadow chancellor has been handed to his close ally John McDonnell. Benn was reappointed to the shadow foreign secretary job.

Several senior figures who served under Ed Miliband have either refused to join the team or have not been offered positions. In his resignation letter, Umunna said he would find it “difficult to abide by the collective responsibility that comes with serving in the shadow cabinet”.

He said: “That is why Jeremy and I have agreed I can more effectively support his leadership from the backbenches. In particular, it is my view that we should support the UK remaining a member of the EU, notwithstanding the outcome of any renegotiation by the Prime Minister, and I cannot envisage any circumstances where I would be campaigning alongside those who would argue for us to leave – Jeremy has made it clear to me that he does not wholeheartedly share this view.”

Emma Reynolds, who served Miliband as shadow Europe minister and shadow housing minister, also quit the frontbench citing concern about Corbyn’s position on the EU.

From an article entitled “Jeremy Corbyn Will Campaign To Stay In The EU, Insists Hilary Benn”, written by Ned Simons, published in The Huffington Post UK on September 14, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/14/jeremy-corbyn-will-campaign-to-stay-in-the-eu-insists-hilary-benn_n_8132078.html

1 Comment

Filed under analysis & opinion, Britain