الاتحاد الأوروبيّ والولايات المتحدة مهدّدان بالتفكك؟

ناصر قنديل

– تنبأت غونداليسا رايس بتفكك الاتحاد السوفياتي، عندما كانت صفتها الباحثة التي نالت شهادة الدكتوراة في العلوم السياسية قبل أكثر من عشر سنوات من توليها أي مسؤولية حكومية، ونالت بسبب أطروحتها مكانة علميّة لفتت نحوها الأنظار ورشحتها للمناصب التي تبوأتها في عهد الرئيس جورج بوش الإبن، وقالت في وصفها لما سيجري في الاتحاد السوفياتي، وقد جرى فعلاً، «إن الإمبراطوريات التاريخية والدول العظمى المعاصرة، ترحل وتتفكك فجأة دون أن تمنحك مقدّمات تراقبها وتبني عليها سياقاً طويلاً ينتهي بالتفكك، إنها كما الطوفان والزلزال عملية تحدث فجأة، إنها تحدث وحسب». وهذا الكلام الذي صح في حال الاتحاد السوفياتي، لا يمكن إنكار إمكانية أن يصح أيضاً في حال غيره من الإمبراطوريات والدول العظمى.

– ما يشهده الاتحاد الأوروبي هذه الأيام، بخلفيّة فهم إضافية لأسباب خروج بريطانيا من الاتحاد كعلامة على نهاية الزمن الافتراضي لعمر الاتحاد، وبدء تبلور أسئلة شعبية حول جدوى البقاء تحت عباءته، يقول إن مخاطر حقيقية تتهدد استمرار الاتحاد، الذي فقد وظيفته في الجغرافيا السياسية والاقتصادية الدولية كإطار جامع لأوروبا بغربها وشرقها يتيح بقوة الحوافز المالية، الحلول مكان حلف الأطلسي، لمحاصرة روسيا داخل حدودها، وهو اليوم يفقد قدرته على تقديم نموذج قادر على الحياة في مواجهة نوعين من الأزمات، لا مبرر لبقائه إذا عجز عن إثبات أنه آلة جماعية أشدّ فعالية من القدرات المنفردة للدول على مواجهتها، النوع الأول هو أزمات الانهيارات المالية التي عصفت باليونان وإيطاليا وإسبانيا، وظهر خلالها الاتحاد، بخلفيته الفرنسية الألمانية، جهة مصلحية تتخذ مسافة من الدولة المهددة، وتكون مساهمتها محكومة بسقف هو الإقراض كما يفعل صندوق النقد الدولي، مقابل شروط، والنوع الثاني هو التهديد الذي مثله فيروس كورونا، حيث لم يظهر الاتحاد أنه موجود، وبدت خطط المواجهة محلية حصراً، كما بدا العجز محلياً، لكن بدت المعونة حاضرة من خارج الاتحاد، وخصوصاً من الصين وروسيا، المفترض أنهما من خارج نادي الأصدقاء التقليديين.

– عندما يدخل الصينيون بمئات الأطباء والخبراء وأطنان المعدات والمستشفيات الميدانية إلى إيطاليا، وعندما يحرك الرئيس الروسي فلاديمير بوتين الطريق البري لشاحناته العسكرية لنقل المساعدات والخبراء والأطباء نحو إيطاليا، فليس من المبالغة القول إننا أمام حركة معاكسة لسقوط جدار برلين، ونحن نرى بأمّ العين أن دول أوروبا الشرقية تتهم بالخيانة أوروبياً، وهي تتوجّه بالشكر على المعونة الصينية والروسية كما فعل رئيس صربيا، وتتسابق بإعلان تخلّيها عن علم الاتحاد الأوروبيّ، وعندما نرى المشهد يتكرّر بقوة في إيطاليا وإسبانيا، بإنزال أعلام الاتحاد الأوروبيّ، ونقرأ مقالات وآراء لقادة في الدولة والأحزاب تطرح أسئلة وجودية حول فرص البقاء في الاتحاد الأوروبيّ، وصولاً للتشكيك في مبررات بقائه، عندها علينا أن لا نتردد في طرح السؤال عما إذا كان الاتحاد، وربما منظومة اليورو، وليس منظومة الشنغن فقط، تتهدّدهم مخاطر الزوال؟

– في الولايات المتحدة الأميركية أسئلة لا تقل خطورة تتعالى أصواتها في العديد من الولايات الأميركية، حول النظام الفدرالي وماذا يقدم لولاياتهم، خصوصاً بالنسبة للولايات الأكثر دخلاً ومساهمة في الميزانية الفدرالية، ومع تفشي فيروس كورونا، ظهرت الحواجز على مداخل الطرق الكبرى التي تربط الولايات ببعضها، توحي بأن المطلوب تأشيرة دخول تمنحها الولاية لأبناء الولايات الأخرى ليتاح لهم الدخول إلى أراضيها. وهذا كافٍ للقول إن النظام الفدرالي أصيب في الصميم، وتقدم ولاية نيويورك نموذجاً عما تعانيه مع النظام الفدرالي عبر المشاهد التي تتناقلها وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي لمستشفياتها، بحال تدعو للشفقة، على مرضى يتوزعون أسرة حديدية صدئة، في الممرات والباحات الخلفية ومواقف السيارات، وأسئلة كبرى عن جدوى البقاء في النظام الفدراليّ ما دام عاجزاً عن تقديم النجدة عند وقوع الكارثة، وبعد زلزال كورونا لن يكون مستغرباً، مع تداعي البورصات والنظام المصرفي، أن نشهد تصاعداً في النقاش حول مبررات تحمل الشراكة في الخسائر، وحول جدوى النظام الفدرالي نفسه، تلاقي دعوات استقلال، قديمة متجددة لأصوات وازنة في عدد من الولايات تنادي بالتمرّد على الصيغة الفدرالية، وستلقى مزيداً من المؤيدين كلما بداً النظام الفدرالي عاجزاً.

“One Country, Two Systems”? Britain and Northern Ireland on Brexit

By Tom Clifford
Global Research, December 17, 2019

One country, two systems. Britain is leaving the European Union. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not leaving on the same terms.

In the UK election, more Irish nationalists than Unionists were elected in Northern Ireland for the first time since Ireland was partitioned in 1921. Not surprisingly, it led to Sinn Fein renewing its calls for a vote to leave the UK and unite with the Irish Republic. This is not going to happen for reasons steeped in history. But also crucially there is not a groundswell of opinion, on either side of the border, for it. But Northern Ireland feels a lesser part of the UK today than at any time since Lloyd George was prime minister.

Hold the front page, as they used to say in pre-internet and website days. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is talking nonsense. There was, he said adamantly, no question of checks being needed on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom under his European Union withdrawal agreement.
“There will not be checks on goods going from Northern Ireland to Great Britain,” Johnson said in November.

Not so fast. His own Brexit secretary, Steve Barclay, had to contradict him. Goods going from Northern Ireland will have to be accompanied by exit declarations and “targeted interventions” from customs officers, he said.

Brexit, The Tories and the “Irish Question”

Johnson, according to his own allies, is a non-starter regarding trust. Let us not forget, he is actually the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party. The Democratic Unionist Party feel they have been abandoned by him. On this, they are right. The DUP were convenient bedfellows when it suited him and when their usefulness was up, they were ruthlessly pushed out. This is no reason for non-Unionists to gloat. If the prime minister can dispatch his allies, then for those of a different political persuasion the occupant of No 10 Downing Street poses, at the very least, a troubling dilemma. Can he be taken at his word or trusted? The evidence suggests not.

Johnson is reneging on his absolute commitment to his allies in the DUP that a “border in the Irish Sea” is something “no British government could or should” ever accept.

DUP leader Arlene Foster was in no doubt. She said the British prime minister betrayed Unionist voters in Northern Ireland when he sealed a deal with the European Union that would introduce a trade barrier down the Irish Sea, jettisoning Northern Ireland from British customs procedures. He reneged on a promise he made when he spoke at their annual conference.

Foster said the party could no longer take Johnson at his word and would have to check if what he said “was actually factually correct”.

“Once bitten, twice shy, we will certainly be looking for the detail of what this [Brexit] is going to look like,” Foster said.

In his victory speech on Friday morning, Johnson said the UK is “leaving the EU as one United Kingdom”. Even if we ignore the Scottish question, this is utterly fraudulent. It is a matter of fact that Northern Ireland is not about to leave the EU on the same terms as Britain.

Crown subjects in Northern Ireland have a right to be told by their prime minister the truth about their status. Johnson displays a reluctance to tell the obvious truth that on the border, borders, literally, on the schizophrenic.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Tom Clifford is an Irish journalist based in China. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Tom Clifford, Global Research, 2019

 

British Election Heralds Collapse of United Kingdom

Image result for British Election Heralds Collapse of United Kingdom
Finian Cunningham
December 16, 2019

Boris Johnson is entitled to crack open a few bottles of champagne after being re-elected prime minister, with his Conservative party winning a landslide majority. But when the celebrations are over, Britain is facing a thumping hangover – from the inescapable fact that half of the United Kingdom is now on an irrevocable path of separatism and independence.

Johnson has won a decisive mandate to “get Brexit done”, at least from London’s perspective. His party now has a substantial parliamentary majority of 80 seats in the House of Commons which will ensure delivery on his promise to execute Britain’s departure from the European Union on January 31. The actual final severance will take another year or two to complete because of negotiations between London and Brussels to definitively hammer out divorce terms. But at least Johnson can claim that he has consummated the final journey to leave the EU on January 31, a journey which began over three years ago when Britons had originally voted for Brexit in the 2016 referendum.

However, crucially, the Conservative government’s mandate for Brexit only applies to England and Wales. It was in these two countries that saw the significant swing of voters from the opposition Labour party to Johnson’s Tories. Thus, in effect, his parliamentary majority stems from voters in England and Wales.

By total contrast, in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the other two regions which make up the United Kingdom, the voters resoundingly rejected Johnson’s Brexit plans and voted for parties wanting to remain in the European Union. The outcome is consistent with the 2016 referendum results when Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted against Brexit.

Moreover, the latest election results have reinforced the call for independence in both Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Scottish Nationalists swept the election to enhance their already existing majority. They now control nearly 90 per cent of all seats in Scotland. Party leader Nicola Sturgeon says there is an unquestionable mandate to hold a second referendum for Scottish independence. The previous independence referendum held in 2014 was defeated. But Scottish nationalists claim that popular support for their cause has surged since the Brexit referendum in 2016. The Scots, by and large, do not want to leave the EU. To remain in the EU therefore necessarily means separating from the United Kingdom and its central government in London.

Boris Johnson has so far rejected calls for holding a second Scottish independence referendum. But his position is untenable. Given the parliamentary numbers for separation stacking up in Scotland, he will have to relent. Nationalists there are demanding the holding of another plebiscite as early as next year.

In Northern Ireland, the election outcome is perhaps even more momentous. For the first time ever, nationalist parties have a majority over pro-British unionist parties. Mary Lou MacDonald, the leader of Sinn Fein, the main nationalist party, says that there is now a clear mandate for holding a referendum on the question of Northern Ireland leaving the United Kingdom. Given the breakthrough nationalist majority in the latest election, that would inevitably lead to a United Ireland, from the northern state joining with the existing southern state, the Republic of Ireland.

Nationalists in Northern Ireland have long-aspired for independence from Britain. Northern Ireland was created in 1921 from an audacious act of gerrymandering by the British government when it partitioned the island of Ireland into an independent southern state (which became the Republic of Ireland) and a small northern state (which became Northern Ireland). The latter remained under Britain’s jurisdiction. The arbitrary, imperialist act of partitioning Ireland was done in order to give the British authorities in London a mandate to rule over a portion of Irish territory because in newly created Northern Ireland the pro-British unionists were in a majority over nationalists. It was British establishment cynicism par excellence.

The present political structure of the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is only a century old. (Before that, the UK included all of Irish territory, but London was forced to grant partial Irish independence due to an armed insurrection.)

In any case, nearly a century after the setting up of Northern Ireland the natural demographic changes in its population have now created a majority for nationalists. The outcome of the election on December 12 is an undeniably huge historic event. For the first time ever, the nationalist mandate has overcome the unionist vote. The historic violation by British gerrymandering against Irish nationalist rights to independence and self-determination has finally been reversed in terms of electoral ballot.

When the Northern Ireland peace deal known as the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998 to bring an end to nearly 30 years of armed conflict, enshrined in that treaty is the “principle of consent”. The British government is treaty-bound to abide by the electoral mandate of a majority in Northern Ireland wanting a United Ireland.

The threshold for triggering a referendum on Northern Ireland leaving British jurisdiction has now been reached. And nationalist parties are openly demanding that the legislative process to achieve that separation is now implemented.

Jonathan Powell, a seasoned British diplomat who oversaw the negotiations of the Good Friday Agreement, is not one for hyperbole. But in an interview with Matt Frei for Britain’s LBC Radio on December 14, Powell said he expected to see the “collapse of the United Kingdom” within the next decade, if not sooner. He was referring specifically to the electoral results in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Boris Johnson’s seeming victory in the British election is a double-edged sword. He may claim to have a mandate to cut off ties with the European Union. But the results also mean Scotland and Northern Ireland are empowered to now cut off their ties with the rest of Britain. The separation of those two states, leaving behind England and Wales, spells the end of the so-called United Kingdom.

Johnson’s election success is not “unleashing great potential” as he claims. Rather, it is unleashing an existential constitutional crisis for the British establishment.

Also by this Author

See also

The Most Dangerous Political Party in Europe

the most dange.jpg

 

By Gilad Atzmon

 The Brits cast their votes. They had a choice between Nationalist – hard capitalism and a socialist manifesto that promised a four day workweek, free broadband, free higher education, saving the NHS and equality ahead. The election results couldn’t be more definitive:

 When people are asked to choose between hard capitalism and socialism, capitalism wins.

 A lot can be said about the collapse of Labour and its leader. How is it possible that Corbyn, clearly a well meaning man, managed to get squashed by the pompous, not so nice, Boris Johnson?  How is it possible that the unruly Bojo crushed Britain’s socialist elder, the man who just three years ago appeared to be a rock star and the only hope for change? How is it possible that the British working class turned their backs on the man who promised to save their NHS, raise minimum wages and push for an equal and fairer society?

 The working class in Britain, as in most Western societies, is divided into three segments: The Working Working Class – they tend to vote Tory;  The Workless Class – they would have voted for the Brexit party but ended up voting Conservative and, finally; The Don’t Want to Work Class which happens to be what is left of Labour’s now illusory constituency. As it seems, even they failed to buy into Corbyn’s lengthy list of ‘free’ gifts.

 Brits may come to regret their electoral choice, possibly within the near future. Some already claim that the worst result of the election was that the Tories won, however, the best consequence of the vote is that the Labour Party has been shredded into infinitesimal particles of political dust. The Party, as we know it, may well be finished.  Yet, what many Brits, and Labour voters in particular, may not fully understand is that the election result saved them from the menace of the most insanely tyrannical political party in Europe.

 For the past three years the Labour Party has turned against its best and most valuable members: it suspended and expelled its own members for telling the truth. In some cases Labour even targeted private citizens, all in the hope that these acts would appease its detractors within the Jewish community’s leadership. I have kept relatively quiet about all this, I didn’t want to be the person who revealed the full extent of the authoritarian tactics undertaken by Corbyn’s Labour nor did I want any responsibility for Labour’s political demise: this job was left to Britain’s Jewish institutions, the Jewish Chronicle, the JLM, the Chief Rabbi, the BOD and the CAA  who have all viciously smeared Corbyn and on a daily basis since the day he was elected to lead the Party.

However, now that Labour has been humiliated and is allegedly ‘seeking reflection,’ this is the right time for me to expose the tyrannical horrors this sycophantic party inflicted on its members and supporters. And, as you may imagine, I have a personal story to tell.

 My readers will remember that last year, just before Christmas, the impoverished Islington Labour Council spent  £136.000 of its taxpayers’ money on Likud Party godfather Sheldon Adelson’s lawyer in its efforts to prevent me from playing in a Rock & Roll concert at one of their venues. Two weeks before Christmas, Labour politician and Islington Council leader Richard Watts shamelessly complied with a ‘request’ from the Herut/Likud UK chairman to bar my performance. This means that  a compromised Labour politician willingly acceded to a request made by a foreign political party, one described by prominent Jewish intellectuals such as Albert Einstein and Hanna Arendt as “akin to Nazi and Fascist parties.”

 It didn’t go very well for Islington’s Labour council. A Christmas miracle occurred at its venue last December when a saxophone playing Santa Claus took care of my musical duties with near perfection execution. News of the Islington scandal spread rapidly. Thousands of people wrote to the Labour council. Many others resigned from the party in protest. One would have expected that after this fiasco, the Labour party would get off my back, But instead, this collective of uniquely ungifted characters failed to draw the most obvious and necessary lessons.

Compromised Labour politicians continued with their desperate campaign to appease the Israel Lobby by repeatedly trying to damage my reputation and music career. In January another caricature of a Labour councillor stepped in. Labour’s parliamentary candidate, Rachel Eden who is listed on the Zionist We Believe in Israel, was desperate to cancel my concert at Reading Jazz Club. Eden met with a wall of resistance. She failed to cancel my concert although she was quite successful in exposing her own true loathsome face. I am delighted to report that Eden didn’t make it into the parliament this week.

 By the end of January I realised that I was facing a campaign orchestrated by Labour to destroy me and my work. A few days after the sold out Reading concert I received the following letter from a British promoter.

“Hi Gilad,

 Hope all is well with you despite the absurdities they keep throwing at you.

I have a choice of dates for you in January next year at the XXX,. I’ve been told that if we want to book you again it has to be discussed at (Labour) council level. I’m hoping the process will be smooth…but who knows with the Labour party these days?

 See you soon,

XXXXX”

 More evidence appeared that the Labour party was deliberately attempting to destroy my artistic career and harm my reputation with the goal of seriously damaging my ability to make a living.

 Things continued to escalate. Labour Party leaders may have been foolish enough to think that ‘destroying’ Atzmon would somehow vindicate Corbyn from the crimes he didn’t commit. By March Labour was waging an all out war against my music.  As the Nazi party did, so Labour launched open warfare against a jazz venue. This time the links led directly to Corbyn’s closest ring within the Labour party. Momentum together with Jewdas, the racially exclusive Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) and Guardian Journalist Owen Jones joined forces in an attempt to mount pressure on the Vortex Jazz Club. When the club didn’t surrender, Labour’s local council, acting like the mob,  sent the police to bully the club. But even this desperate measure backfired. In its reasonable response, something unfamiliar to Labour politicians, the club requested that the police do their homework and find out who I was and what I stood for. The cops called the club a few hours later and apologised, admitting that there was nothing wrong with Atzmon.  They confirmed that there has never been a single unlawful activity attached to my name in Britain or anywhere else.

The fact that promoters and music lovers did not bow to Labour tyranny and continued booking me and coming to hear me play in every jazz venue and festival in the country should have delivered a message to the Labour leaders who pushed the anti-Atzmon war. Seemingly, the authoritarian collective, who aren’t even gifted at being authoritarian, decided upon a different  form of malevolence. They began to expel and suspend members for reading Atzmon. In some cases, they even reported their own members to the police for doing just that.

A few months ago a FB friend was suspended from the Labour Party in part because he shared articles by me and had even dared to communicate with me in the open. The Labour ‘dispute team’ accused my friend of sharing an article by me titled The Primacy of Jewish Genes. The article delved into Jewish scholarship and actually ridiculed the idea of ‘a Jewish gene,’ ‘Jewish biologism’ or a  ‘Jewish race.’

A few months after he was notified by the Labour dispute team of his suspension, the police were knocking on my FB friend’s door. The evidence the police presented of possible ‘hateful communication’ was literally identical to the Labour document. It is not clear whether the Labour party filed the police complaint against my friend or if documents were stolen from Labour and somehow triggered the police investigation. What is clear beyond doubt is that Corbyn’s Labour Party was compiling ‘incriminating’ evidence against its own members. The party has engaged in intensive surveillance of its own members, searching personal and intimate communications and digging into personal social media.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand why a party that displays such blatant disregard for elementary freedoms is not just unfit to govern. Corbyn’s Labour has been a horrendous, tyrannical Orwellian operation. Luckily, the Brits, and amongst them many Labour veterans, realised that Labour in its current authoritarian state presents an imminent threat to freedom. On election day, the Brits gave the party a fatal knockout.

I learned from my friend that the Police interrogation lasted for an entire afternoon and led to nothing, my friend is a genuine anti racist and there was nothing in his communications that even resembled hatred or any form of bigotry. At one point during the questioning, the policeman asked my friend about my article and my friend said he wondered what was wrong with it. The policeman’s answer was shocking albeit amusing. “We are also puzzled by it. We looked into it and found nothing wrong in this Atzmon guy, we thought maybe you could tell us.”

On 11 December, just one day before the general election, the press informed us that the police were probing anti Semitism within the Labour Party and had submitted an evidential file against five Labour members to the Crown Prosecution Service. It is unclear how these bundles of ‘evidence’ made it to the police in the first place, did the party report its members?  Some people believe that the files were stolen from the party by members who were even more morally compromised than their party. Either way it is clear that in compiling such files the party was acting against its members. And if this is how Labour treats its core members, try to imagine what this party could have done to its dissenters if it had been given the chance to form the government.

Three days before the election I learned about another former party member who had been permanently expelled from the party. Amongst her ‘thought crimes,’ she was accused of sharing my thoughts.

Item number one on her ‘draft charge’ from Labour was “posting an article by Gilad Atzmon that Israel runs the British Press.”

The article titled This is how Israel Runs the British Press was not an opinion piece, it was actually a leaked document that revealed the extent of Hasbara’s/Mossad’s/Sayanim’s operation in the UK. It explained how Israel and its agents manage to dominate news coverage in Britain and beyond. The leaked email revealed how BICOM (British Israel Communication & research Centre) runs the News desk for the BBC, Sky and the FT.

Corbyn’s Labour has been targeting its best members for most of the last three years and has used the most disgusting authoritarian tactics. It has intimidated activists, suspended and expelled people for truthful statements and pressured artists and venues. When some of these stories came out, a few ardent Labour supporters insisted that it was the Blairites and the Zionists in the Party who were behind this mess. They were either misled or are lying to themselves, the Corbynites were at least as bad as the others, they might well have been worse.  Foolishly, naively and wickedly, Momentum, the racially exclusive JVL and other compromised elements associated with Corbyn, thought that by targeting their comrades and yours attempting to destroy my career they could appease the Lobby and their detractors within the Jewish community. Obviously, they failed in their goal. What they achieved was the opposite. They exposed themselves for what they are: a bunch of tyrannical, compromised caricatures unfit to govern.

As of today, Corbyn is finished. The prospect of equality in the near future in Britain is gone. Corbyn, who didn’t miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, can only blame himself for the disaster his presence in British politics inflicted on all of us and on the Left in particular. But Corbyn did not create this disaster alone, he surrounded himself with advisers who were at least as gullible and dysfunctional has he.

 We learned this week that Chris Williamson, the Labour MP who supported, for a few minutes, my right to make a living and then found himself back peddling in an attempt to survive the Lobby onslaught, garnered just 695 votes last Thursday.  Williamson’s political career is probably finished. Rachel Eden, the Labour MP candidate who tried to stop me from performing in Reading failed to make it into the parliament. I guess that fighting a jazz artist and an arts centre earned her some enemies within her own constituency. I, however, am still alive and kicking. My music and literary career is untouched. Despite the desperate attempts by Corbyn’s Labour to eradicate me on behalf of the Lobby, I publish my commentaries on a daily basis and I play music every night.  On election day, I played at the Oxford Jazz club, The room was sold out well in advance. At 22.10 as I started my second set, I played a requiem for Labour and Corbyn, I made the political dirge as respectful as I could.

What we saw in Britain last Thursday could be described as a populist coup against the Labour party except Labour wasn’t even in power. One may wonder how the socialist opposition party managed to make itself so reviled. It was not Corbyn’s zigzag over Brexit that made him hated, it is not the free gifts he vowed to spread if elected, it is not the nonsense labels of anti-Semitism stuck on him, these actually made him popular. It was his party’s tyrannical and authoritarian inclinations that made Labour’s core support run away.

To locate a Labour’s enclave use a magnifying glass,

To locate a Labour’s enclave use a magnifying glass,

Last Thursday Labour was practically wiped out and throughout the entire country. If you want to locate Labour ghettos on the map, you may need to use a magnifying glass. The Brits managed to save themselves from a dangerous bunch of ‘well meaning’  vindictive Orwellian characters. Labour has been severely punished by the Brits. From this point on, any authoritarian attempt by Labour to interfere with elementary human rights should be met with fierce resistance: exposed and denounced. I tend to believe that in order to save the Labour Party from its current rotten state, it had better be killed off first.


My battle for truth and freedom involves  some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Donate

Election Result Signals a Possible End of the United Kingdom

By Alan MacLeod

Source

Corbyn Rallying in Middlesbrough 3116b

On the face of it, Thursday’s election result could hardly have been better for Boris Johnson and his ruling Conservative Party. Campaigning on a simple slogan of “get Brexit done,” the Tories romped to victory, winning 365 of a total of 650 seats, easily enough for a comfortable majority government. In his victory speech, the Prime Minister claimed that he was humbled that the British public had put their trust in him, and promised to make it is mission to work night and day, flat out, to get Brexit done by January 31st, “no ifs, no buts, no maybes.”

Even better, his rivals suffered huge defeats; after what he called a “very disappointing night for the Labour Party,” Jeremy Corbyn announced he was standing down after four years in charge. Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson suffered the embarrassment of losing her East Dunbartonshire seat.

The results will be interpreted as a very clear mandate for Johnson to push forward in his plans for a quick departure from the European Union. And yet the irony is that it is precisely this insistence from many in the Conservative and Unionist Party, to give it its full name, that could lead to the breakup of the union, ending the United Kingdom forever. An October poll found that the majority of English Conservative voters would accept the fragmentation of the UK as a price for leaving the EU. Those voters may get their wish– and sooner than expected.

Scotland, who overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU, gave the Scottish National Party (SNP) an enormous majority as the party won 47 of the country’s 59 seats on 45% of the total vote share, 12 more seats than it got in 2017. This is added to the 69 out of a possible 129 representatives in occupies in the local Scottish government, a remarkable achievement in a multi-party, proportional representation system.

The result is an undeniable mandate for a second independence referendum, the last on coming in 2014, where 45% of Scots voted to leave the union. Polls suggest that the majority will vote for independence this time. A key talking point from the anti-independence side was that the country could not be certain of staying in the EU if it left the UK, a trump card that has now turned to dust. Johnson has talked of blocking a second referendum, but SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon has suggested they might organize one anyway, without the backing of London, and as imminently as in a few months.

In England, the two unionist, pro-EU parties, Labour and the Liberal Democrats felt the ire of voters, leaving the political center rather vacant. Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland the strongly right-wing Protestant Democratic Unionist Party leader Nigel Dodds spectacularly lost his seat to Sinn Fein’s John Finucane. Finucane’s father was the victim of an infamous murder by loyalist paramilitaries. But Sinn Fein, a leftist party that stands for a united Ireland, has its own deep connections to the IRA. Since September, surveys have shown that a majority of Northern Irish also favor leaving the UK and unifying with the Republic of Ireland, which wrested its own independence from the UK in 1922 after a bitter armed struggle. The fact that Johnson is charging ahead with Brexit, which has much more profound consequences for Northern Ireland due to its land border with and deep connections to the EU member state to its south, will do nothing to reverse this trend.

For the first time in history, the north has elected a majority of Irish nationalist and republican politicians to the Westminster parliament, with Sinn Fein receiving 47% of the vote itself. Its leader Mary Lou McDonald claimed that the calls for a referendum on Irish unification were now “impossible to ignore.”

The underlying reason for the growing nationalist and separatist sentiment is the decades of neoliberal policies that have brought with it economic dislocation, austerity and a generalized discontent. Both real wages and living standards have been on a long, slow decline since the 1970s. This has been most apparent in the post-industrial north of England, not coincidentally the area with the strongest pro-Brexit sentiment. On the other hand, the populations of the ravaged cities of Glasgow and Belfast have had their energies channeled into a more progressive vision of independence.

It is precisely the Conservative Party who are most responsible for implementing the economic changes that have led to this situation. Ironic then, that they have been granted the dubious honor of pushing through a Brexit that will likely only make the problem worse. In his victory speech outside 10 Downing Street, Johnson described himself as a “one nation Conservative.” He may be ruling over a much smaller one very soon.

Someone Interfered in the UK Election, and It Wasn’t Russia

Global Research, December 14, 2019
CaitlinJohnstone.com 13 December 2019

Ladies and gentlemen I have here at my fingertips indisputable proof that egregious election meddling took place in the United Kingdom on Thursday.

Before you get all excited, no, it wasn’t the Russians. It wasn’t the Chinese, the Iranians, Cobra Command or the Legion of Doom. I’m not going to get any Rachel Maddow-sized paychecks for revealing this evidence to you, nor am I going to draw in millions of credulous viewers waiting with bated breath for a bombshell revelation of an international conspiracy that will invalidate the results of the election.

In fact, hardly anyone will even care.

Hardly anyone will care because this election interference has been happening right out in the open, and was perfectly legal. And nobody will suffer any consequences for it.

Rania Khalek

@RaniaKhalek

The centrists and mainstream media outlets are responsible for the right wing win in the UK. They spent all their time bashing and smearing Jeremy Corbyn bc they will always prioritize smashing the left, even if it means allying with the far right. Shameful.

1,734 people are talking about this
Nobody will suffer any consequences for interfering in the UK election because the ones doing the interfering were extremely powerful, and that’s who the system is built to serve.

As of this writing British exit polls are indicating a landslide victory for the Tories. Numerous other factors went into this result, including most notably a Labour Party ambivalently straddling an irreconcilable divide on the issue of Brexit, but it is also undeniable that the election was affected by a political smear campaign that was entirely unprecedented in scale and vitriol in the history of western democracy. This smear campaign was driven by billionaire-controlled media outlets, along with intelligence and military agencies, as well as state media like the BBC.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been described as the most smeared politician in history, and this is a fair description. Journalist Matt Kennard recently compiled documentation of dozens of incidentsin which former and current spooks and military officials collaborated with plutocratic media institutions to portray Corbyn as a threat to national security. Journalistic accountability advocates like Media Lens and Jonathan Cook have been working for years to compile evidence of the mass media’s attempts to paint Corbyn as everything from a terrorist sympathizer to a Communist to a Russian asset to an IRA supporter to a closet antisemite. Just the other day The Grayzone documented how establishment narrative manager Ben Nimmo was enlisted to unilaterally target Corbyn with a fact-free Russiagate-style conspiracy theory in the lead-up to the election, a psyop that was uncritically circulated by both right-wing outlets like The Telegraph as well as ostensibly “left”-wing outlets like The Guardian.

Just as Corbyn’s advocacy for the many over the plutocratic few saw him targeted by billionaire media outlets, his view of Palestinians as human beings saw him targeted by the imperialist Israel lobby as exposed in the Al Jazeera documentary The Lobby. For a mountain of links refuting the bogus antisemitism smear directed at Corbyn, a lifelong opponent of antisemitism, check out the deluge of responses to this query I made on Twitter the other day.

This interference continued right up into the day before the election, with the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg flagrantly violating election rules by reporting that early postal votes had been illegally tallied and results were “looking very grim for Labour”.

Caitlin Johnstone ⏳@caitoz

There was extreme election interference in the . It didn’t come from the Russians. It didn’t come from the Chinese. It came from the billionaire class and its political/media lackeys. And it was perfectly legal.

1,462 people are talking about this
The historically unprecedented smear campaign that was directed at Corbyn from the right, the far-right, and from within his own party had an effect. Of course it did. If you say this today on social media you’ll get a ton of comments telling you you’re wrong, telling you every vote against Labour was exclusively due to the British people not wanting to live in a Marxist dystopia, telling you it was exclusively because of Brexit, totally denying any possibility that the years of deceitful mass media narrative management that British consciousness was pummelled with day in and day out prior to the election had any impact whatsoever upon its results.

Right. Sure guys. Persistent campaigns to deliberately manipulate people’s minds using mass media have no effect on their decisions at all. I guess that’s why that whole “advertising” fad never made any money.

I am not claiming here that the billions of dollars worth of free mass media reporting that was devoted to smearing Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party had a greater effect on the election results than Brexit and other strategic stumbles in the party. I’m just saying that it definitely had a much greater effect than the few thousand dollars Russian nationals spent on social media memes in the US, which the American political/media class has been relentlessly shrieking about for three years. To deny that a media smear campaign the size and scope of that directed at Corbyn had an effect is the same as denying that advertising, a trillion-dollar industry, has an effect.

Which means that plutocrats and government agencies indisputably interfered in the British election, to an exponentially greater extent than anything the Russians are even alleged to have done. Yet according to British law it was perfectly legal, and according to British society it was perfectly acceptable. It’s perfectly legal and acceptable for powerful individuals to have a vastly greater influence on a purportedly democratic election than any of the ordinary individuals voting in it.

A free and healthy society would not work this way. A free and healthy society would view all forms of manipulation as taboo and unacceptable. A free and healthy society would not allow the will of members of one small elite class to carry more weight than the will of anyone else. A free and healthy society would give everyone an equal voice at the table, and look after everyone’s concerns. It certainly wouldn’t tolerate a few individuals who already have far too much abusing their power and wealth to obtain even more.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from the author

Switzerland: the political system and the cold arrogance

by Paul Schmutz Schaller for the Saker Blog

Switzerland: the political system and the cold arrogance

Since more than 125 years, Switzerland has a very interesting tradition of popular votes. There are three situations which lead to a popular vote:

a) (Small) changes of the constitution, proposed by the government and approved by the parliament.

b) (Small) changes of the constitution, proposed by a popular initiative, which needs to collect 100’000 signatures (not online!); actually, there are 5.44 millions who are entitled to vote so that 100’000 are about 1.84% of all.

c) New laws or changes of existing laws, proposed by the government and approved by the parliament, if there is a popular referendum, which needs 50’000 signatures.

In the last 10 years, there were 85 popular votes, with very diverse subjects, for example: social and economical questions; questions of immigration and asylum; questions of environment, energy, and nutrition; taxes; transport (roads, railways); medical questions; security and army. Of the 85 popular votes, 16 were of category a) (13 of them were approved in the vote), 46 of category b) (6 of them were approved, against the recommendation of the government), and 23 of category c) (in 16 cases, the proposal of the government and the parliament was approved). Hence, in 16 of the 85 votes, the government did not win. The participation was quite variable; usually, it is between 40% and 50%.

Please do not think that these votes are something like “people” against “elite” or “working class” against “monopoly capital”. Such votes do not exist in reality, at least not in Switzerland. Nearly each vote is the result of some divisions among the ruling classes. Each side tries to convince the population that it supports the real interests of the people while the other side defends only egoistic, particular interests. Of course, in most cases, there are huge differences concerning the financial resources of the two sides. Moreover, the press is in the hands of very few people (as usually in Western countries), which gives them a big advantage. Nevertheless, they are not omnipotent and it arrives that their money and their propaganda is not well targeted.

By the way, the results are usually not overwhelming clear. Only sometimes for subjects of category a) since in these cases, a popular vote is necessary even if there is no serious political opposition. Aside from such cases, there was only one popular vote in the last 10 years, where the losing side got less than 20%. The subject was a popular initiative of a small political party, which demanded a radical change of the tax system without being able to simply explain how the new tax system would work. They got only 8%. On the other hand, close results occur regularly.

Some examples of popular votes

Let me now discuss some examples. As in many other countries, the financing of the retirement is a problem in Switzerland, due to important changes in the age structure of the population. Generally speaking, I think that the Swiss population is quite aware of the problem. However, obviously, right wing parties and left wing parties greatly differ on the method how to solve this problem. In this situation, a quite creative idea emerged in the parliament. In 2017, the government had lost three popular votes, two concerning the retirement and one concerning tax relief for commercial enterprises. The first two were lost mainly due to the opposition of right wing parties while the third was opposed by left wing parties. So, the parliament proposed a combination of the two subjects, considering that both sides would have some advantages as well as disadvantages. This proposition was clearly accepted in a popular vote in 2019.

The immigration question has occupied the Swiss population since at least 50 years. In 2014, a popular initiative for the limitation of the immigration was accepted in a popular vote by 50,3% against 49,7%. This was almost a political sensation, which had some immediate consequences. Since the result was close and very unexpected, some people quite quickly proposed to repeat the popular vote. However, one must underline that these were rather amateurish people, politically speaking. No important political party, which was among the losers of the vote, gave support to this proposition and a second popular vote will not happen. On the other hand, popular initiatives are usually formulated quite generally and it is up to the parliament to elaborate the precise laws. In this case, the winners of the vote were not satisfied with the elaboration of the parliament.

Switzerland has the reputation of being a beautiful country and I shall not say the contrary. Protection of the environment has a long popular tradition in this country. In 2012, a popular initiative was accepted with 50.6% against 49.4%. It demanded the restriction of the construction of secondary residences, which was mainly a problem in the touristic regions of the Alps. This result also was a huge surprise. In this case, there were no demands for repeating the vote; however, again, the winners were not completely satisfied with the successive elaboration of the laws by the parliament.

In a popular vote in 2014, it was rejected that Switzerland buys new fighter jets. This also was an important defeat for the government. Many Swiss think that fighter jets are expensive prestige objects. Clearly, the subject is not closed and more popular votes will come. I wonder whether the recent experiences with Yemen and Saudi Arabia will have some influence.

My last example is from 2013 where a popular initiative – called fat cat initiative – was accepted with 68,0%. In the history of Switzerland, this was the highest score for a popular initiative which was not supported by the government. The subject turned around the excessive salaries of top managers. The vote was a kind of protest against the parallel world in Switzerland, formed by the top managers of big enterprises and their sponsors. Ordinary Swiss people have no access to this world, which functions in its own way. I would think that few people have the illusion that the acceptance of this popular initiative will change much. But it was a warning to this parallel world, indicating that the population is not completely defenceless against them.

In the light of the Swiss experiences, let me make some comments about the most famous popular vote in the world of the last years, namely the vote on Brexit of June 2016. Recall that the participation was 72.2% and the result was 51.9% to 48.1%. In the international press, this was characterized as a close vote. Moreover, prominent politicians, for example former prime minister Blair, almost immediately demanded a repetition of the vote, based among other things on online petitions. From my point of view, this all is nonsense. A difference of 3.8% cannot be judged as close, considering also the high participation and the fact that the British government was against Brexit. The actual prime minister Johnson may be what he is, but for me, his main argument – that one has to respect the popular vote on Brexit – is completely legitimate.

A government of national unity

The Swiss government consists of seven members, called federal council. In principle, each one has the same power; the president changes each year by a rotation principle. Federal councils are elected by the parliament. As a consequence of the system of popular votes, the Swiss government is a government of national unity, not by law, but by tradition. Important political forces are integrated in this way. In the last 80 years, there are three essential examples. Beginning in 1943, the worker and trade union movement was integrated and has – since 1959 – two members of the government. Since 1971, Swiss women are entitled to vote and now, a Swiss government without women is unthinkable (actually 3 of the 7 are women). In connexion with the problems of immigration, the Swiss party with the clearest position against exaggerated immigration became the most important party. As a consequence, this party has now 2 members of the government.

Again from a Swiss point of view, the political system in France is not effective. It systematically excludes large parts of the population, in particular the parties of Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon. It is obvious for me that the protest movement of the “Gilets Jaunes” is a consequence of this exclusion, provoked by the political system.

The next elections for the Swiss parliament will be on 20 October 2019. In December 2019, the new parliament will elect or re-elect the 7 federal councils. Concerning the parliament elections, everybody expects important gains for the green and ecological parties. This will then raise the question whether one of the federal councils should be from an ecological party. Such questions are among the most discussed and most interesting in Swiss politics.

Generally speaking, the Swiss population is very content with the political system. Usually, the approval rating of the government is much higher in Switzerland than in other Western countries.

Relations with the European Union (EU)

Switzerland is not a member of the EU, but is surrounded by countries of the EU. Therefore, the relations with the EU are crucial. Some 25 years ago, the EU was quite popular in Switzerland. But this has very much changed. Today, it is merely seen as a necessary evil to have good relations with the EU. Paradoxically, the majority in Switzerland seems however to be opposed that other countries leave the EU.

Recently, the Swiss government has negotiated a new bundle of treatises with the EU. For the EU, the subject seems to be settled. However, in Switzerland, the result of the negotiations will have no chance in a popular vote (which necessarily will be held). The Swiss government is aware of this situation and looks for some improvements. I must say that I am looking forward to a confrontation between the Swiss population and the EU concerning these new treatises.

Why are there dissidents in Switzerland?

One cannot say that the Swiss political system is bad. As I said, the country is quite beautiful and, moreover, quite rich, modern, and open to the world. So, why are we not all happy? Why are there dissidents like me? Of course, I can only give my own explications. By the way, if you read “About the Saker” on this website, you will easily conclude that the Saker is a Swiss citizen, but not particularly happy about his experiences in Switzerland – to say the least.

From an abstract point of view, you can say that Switzerland is a typical Western country. Take as an example the fact that the “approval rating” in the Swiss population of countries like Russia, Iran, or Syria is very small. And since the case of the Occident in the world is utterly unfair, it is only logical that you become a dissident if you live in a Western country. Ok, this is a simple formula, which moreover is not wrong. However, in some sense, it completely misses the point. I claim that nobody becomes a dissident just by rational reflection. What really matter are life experience and a protracted confrontation with the society.

I would say that a dissident is somebody who expects nothing more from his or her country. Who no longer looks for being integrated. Not because of revenge, but because of he or she has tried hard for some reasonable time, but did not find any possible way. Accordingly, I completely lost my faith in Switzerland. I would not longer appreciate being identified with Switzerland. I owe nothing to this country. Ok, I admit that I was disappointed when Roger Federer lost the Wimbledon final despite having match points. And I would support Swiss football team (soccer, for Americans) against most other countries, including China and Russia (but not against Syria, Iran, or Venezuela). But this is more nostalgia, than anything else.

In fact, I consider Switzerland as a boring country. No positive dreams, no ideals, no engagement, no ideas, not even serious discussions. Only chilling defence of the achievements – which, in principle, is not wrong, but the problem is the “only”. And above all, an intolerable arrogance against all that is not glorifying Western hegemony.

“But you have the right of expressing all this criticism.” I hear this argument since 50 years. But only recently, I understood what is thoroughly wrong with it. It suggests that criticism is the aim. But no, I was not born for criticizing. Looking for critics was never my first reaction, except maybe very occasionally in my youth. Ok, I had my own ideas – but for constructive reasons. What I was looking for was the opportunity to contribute to the society as well as possible. But again and again, I was frustrated. The society did not at all care about my contributions. They wanted just my subordination to the existing order. So, finally, I lost interest and became a dissident. Obviously, this made me more calm and easy-going. And as the Saker says: “The deserts are filled with submarines.”

%d bloggers like this: