brexit challenge from scotland will be heard in supreme court next tuesday

Major showdown’ predicted after Parliament suspension ruled unlawful
The Canary, Sep 11 2019

A “major showdown” at the UK’s Supreme Court has been predicted after Scotland’s highest civil court ruled Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament is unlawful. It comes after three judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Wednesday found in favour of a cross-party group of politicians who are challenging the prime minister’s move. Last week, Judge Lord Doherty had dismissed a challenge against the suspension of Parliament, saying it was for politicians and not the courts to decide. The UK government plans to appeal against the ruling and Nick McKerrell, a lecturer in law at Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU) now expects a showdown at the Supreme Court. He said:

This was a pretty unexpected judgment from the Inner House of the Court of Session and strongly overrules the findings of Lord Doherty’s ruling last week. The Lord President, the top judge in Scotland, said the decision to suspend Parliament could only be reviewed if its purpose was to “stymie parliamentary scrutiny.” He believed this was the true reason. This was because of the length of time and the documents released showing the political discussions around prorogation that took place. The other two judges supported this. Significantly, all argued that in most normal circumstances the decision to prorogue could not be reviewed by the Courts which shows how exceptional this situation is. Ultimately then the court said the decision to suspend Parliament is “null and is of no effect.” However, this will now be appealed to the Supreme Court of the UK in London next Tuesday. This will now be a major showdown.

Scottish Greens parliamentary co-leader Patrick Harvie said:

We’ll all need to study the detail of this ruling but it seems clear that the criticism of Boris Johnson’s decision to shut down parliament has been vindicated, and we therefore support the demand to recall parliament. It’s extraordinary that the UK government, even one which has descended ever further into minority status, should have the power to replace the prime minister, set the parliamentary agenda and even force MPs to pack up and go home to avoid being held to account. No Scottish government would have the legal ability to act in this dictatorial manner. The present crisis has highlighted the urgent need for a modern, democratic constitution which prevents the abuse of power by dangerous extremists like Boris Johnson.

silly season

Government ‘examining’ Boris Johnson’s madcap 25-mile bridge to Northern Ireland
Ben Glaze, Daily Mirror, Sep 11 2019

Boris Johnson on the bridge of the Isle of Wight ferry as leaves Portsmouth on Jun 27 2019.
Photo: Dominic Lipinski/WPA

Leaked documents say the Treasury and the Dept for Transport have been asked to examine risks and costs of the £15b project, backed repeatedly by the Tory leader. It comes despite experts warning the sea channel between Portpatrick and Larne is almost 1,000 ft deep and may contain unexploded WW2 bombs. Downing Street sources today claimed the blustering PM does not “have a plan” for a bridge and they had not commissioned “specific” advice. But Channel 4 News quoted leaked documents which show the PM wants to know “the risks around the project” and “where this money could come from.” And the PM has repeatedly backed the idea of a bridge across the Irish Sea, despite his plan for London’s much smaller Garden Bridge ending in expensive failure. Mr Johnson said in June:

I am an enthusiast for that idea. I’m going to put it out there. I’m all in favour of it, but it’s got to be supported by people here in Northern Ireland.

A government statement last night did not deny the accuracy of the leak to Channel 4 News. A government spokesman said:

Government regularly commissions work to examine the feasibility of projects. During the leadership campaign candidates spoke about a number of issues which resulted in Number 10 commissions ahead of a new PM taking over. This PM has made no secret of his support for infrastructure projects that increase connectivity for people and particularly those that strengthen the Union.

A Downing Street source later tried to play down the reports, stressing:

It was a commission before Boris became PM. We’ve not commissioned specific bridge advice and do not have a plan for one.

Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom helpfully pointed out a bridge would not be complete before the Oct 31 Brexit deadline, which is only 50 days away. She added:

There are amazing ambitions for the future. I’m not aware that is one.

As mayor of London, Boris Johnson backed a failed plan for a “floating paradise” across the River Thames that blew £43m of public money. The Garden Bridge was beset by controversy from the start until it was finally scrapped by his successor Sadiq Khan in 2017. As costs spiralled critics blasted the link for being privately run, yet publicly-subsidised, while there was a more pressing need for Thames crossings elsewhere. Yet Boris Johnson was a doughty defender of the “vanity project,” even making a secretive trip to San Francisco in 2013 in a bid to get Apple to sponsor it.

Architect Prof Alan Dunlop has said a bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland could fuel a “Celtic powerhouse” and cost around £15b. Prof Dunlop said while a link from the Mull of Kintyre would be shorter and cheaper, a bridge of about 25 miles from Portpatrick in Scotland would provide a bigger boost. It comes as the PM’s top Brexit negotiator David Frost holds further talks with EU officials in Brussels, aimed at breaking the deadlock. Mr Johnson is said to be preparing to soften his position on the Irish Backstop, either to seek a repeatedly rejected “time limit,” despite ruling it out, or an “all-Ireland” deal that could create checks between NI and GB. Tory sources suggested he might be prepared to consider a NI only backstop in a bid to reach agreement with Brussels. The compromise plan was first offered by the EU at an early stage in negotiations with Theresa May. But it was dropped after the hardline DUP, who propped up the Tory Government, responded angrily. Arlene Foster, DUP leader, warned yesterday that the move would be “anti-democratic and unconstitutional.” But the idea, which could build on a common food and agricultural zone across Ireland, is popular in the province. Mr Johnson then fuelled speculation he could extend this to effectively create a border down the Irish Sea at a press conference in Dublin. He said:

The landing zone is clear. We need to find a way to ensure the UK is not kept locked in the backstop arrangement and there’s a way out for the UK. Strip away the politics and at the core of each problem you find practical issues that can be resolved with sufficient energy and a spirit of compromise.

Downing Street sources denied that the PM was also considering a two-year time limit on the backstop. one insisted:

He’s seeking a removal of the backstop, not a time limit.

i think i smell a tom watson takeover of labour in the air

Watson: be the party of Remain
Warren Murray, Groan, sep 11 2019

Labour deputy leader Tom Watson is to call today for his party to “unambiguously and unequivocally back remain” and push for a referendum before a general election. An election alone “might well fail to solve this Brexit chaos,” Watson is due to say. MPs looking to stop no deal are exploring ways to bring back a version of Theresa May’s Brexit deal plus a vote on a second referendum in the last two weeks of October after parliament returns. Ken Clarke, one of those fired from the Tories by Boris Johnson last week, has said he would be willing to be an “honorific figurehead” for an alternative government seeking such a compromise. The EU has said a NI-only backstop, previously rejected by Theresa May as a threat to the UK’s integrity, might be back on the table to salvage a deal. Downing Street has denied considering it, after the suggestion rattled the DUP. On the Today programme the Labour MP Owen Smith, who unsuccessfully challenged Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership in 2016, said he agreed with Watson that there was no such thing as a good Brexit. Smith said:

An argument in principle that there is no such thing as a good Brexit deal, that all versions of Brexit are going to leave Britain poorer and more isolated in the world, and that’s why there is no good reason why Labour should be supporting that. It’s at odds with our values, it’s at odds with the electoral interests of the Labour party and it’s at odds with the prospects for a better future for our constituents, so we should be opposed to it and we should be clear that Labour doesn’t believe Brexit is a good thing and critically we shouldn’t be bamboozled or bullied by Boris Johnson into going into an election on his terms.

But the Labour MP Gareth Snell said:

I disagree with Tom Watson. I think the numbers simply do not exist in parliament for a referendum. The public don’t want a second referendum, either. The withdrawal agreement bill, which is a very different thing, that was the outcome of the cross-party negotiations, ought to be presented to parliament as a basis on which trying to find a deal. I think minds are sharpening, I think people are seeing what damage could be done from a no-deal Brexit.

Tom Watson to break Labour’s uneasy truce over Brexit
Heather Stewart, Groan, Sep 11 2019

Labour’s divisions on Brexit will be laid bare on Wednesday, as Tom Watson urges his party to “unambiguously and unequivocally back Remain” and to push for a referendum before a general election. Speaking at a Creative Industries Federation conference in London on Wednesday, Watson will argue that Labour can win back the Remain voters who deserted it in May’s European elections, but only if it now becomes an avowedly anti-Brexit party. Watson will insist that it is not too late to win back Remainers attracted by the Lib Dems’ simpler “stop Brexit” message. He will say:

Boris Johnson has already conceded that the Brexit crisis can only be solved by the British people. But the only way to break the Brexit deadlock once and for all is a public vote in a referendum. A general election might well fail to solve this Brexit chaos. If there is a general election before a referendum, I will be arguing that our position going into that election should be totally clear. We must unambiguously and unequivocally back Remain. My experience on the doorstep tells me most of those who’ve deserted us over our Brexit policy did so with deep regret and would greatly prefer to come back. They just want us to take an unequivocal position that whatever happens we’ll fight to Remain, and to sound like we mean it. There is no such thing as a good Brexit deal, which is why I believe we should advocate for Remain.

His stance contrasts with Jeremy Corbyn’s insistence on Tuesday that any referendum must include a “credible leave option.” This leaves the door open for Brexit voters to support Labour. Addressing the TUC in Brighton, after twice whipping his MPs not to support Boris Johnson’s bid to trigger a snap general election, Corbyn said:

A general election is coming, but we won’t allow Johnson to dictate the terms. We’re ready for that election. Johnson is pursuing a Trump deal Brexit, hijacking the referendum result to shift even more power and wealth to those at the top. We’re ready to unleash the biggest people-powered campaign we’ve ever seen, and in that election we will commit to a public vote, with a credible option to Leave and the option to Remain.

Corbyn later met leaders of the key Labour-affiliated unions, and agreed the party should stick to its policy of backing a referendum, but ensuring they have something to offer leave supporters. one person with knowledge of the meeting said:

The policy is clear. If it is a bad Tory deal, then Labour will formally back Remain. If Labour is in government, it will negotiate the best possible deal it can and let people decide between that deal and the current deal as EU members.

Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer will echo Corbyn’s language about a “credible leave option” when he addresses the TUC on Wednesday. He will promise that MPs won’t be “silenced” by Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament. Starmer will say:

Just as we worked throughout the summer to pass a law preventing no deal, so we will work each and every day we are shut down to enforce that law. Prime minister: you can hide from parliament for a few weeks, but when we return we will be ready.

Watson’s intervention is likely to be viewed as less than helpful by the Labour leadership. One Corbyn loyalist in the shadow cabinet said:

This speech does not reflect Labour policy in any way. Tom has been increasingly detached from mainstream Labour thinking. He often misses shadow cabinet these days. Many on the left of the party are suggesting that he wants to avoid an election at all costs, out of fear that Jeremy may become prime minister.

By contrast to Watson’s claim, party strategists believe the most ardent remain voters will be all but impossible to win back, but hope they can offer a pragmatic way out of the current crisis for both leavers and remainers. There was disquiet among some around Corbyn that the chaotic events of the past week in parliament risked allowing Johnson to present the Labour leader as part of a Westminster cabal, trying to block Brexit. But they hope that once a general election campaign kicks off, focus will switch to Corbyn’s radical policies, including the increase in workers’ rights he outlined in Brighton on Tuesday. One Labour source said:

Once we get out of here, there isn’t any way to establishment up Jeremy.

Labour’s Brexit policy has shifted in a series of incremental steps over the past 12 months, from a referendum being one option “on the table,” to its preferred route out of the deadlock in parliament. Some members of the shadow cabinet, including Emily Thornberry and John McDonnell, have already made clear they would campaign to remain in a referendum, whatever deal Labour was able to secure from the EU27. McDonnell suggested on Sunday the party would not seek to open lengthy negotiations with Brussels, but would be hoping to rubber-stamp something like Theresa May’s deal, with the addition of the compromises Labour had secured during the cross-party talks earlier this year. These included continued customs union membership until the question of whether to leave could be settled at a general election; and closer alignment with the EU on workers’ rights and environmental standards.

The Financial Times lays down the law to Labour’s Corbyn
Thomas Scripp, WSWS, Sep 11 2019

After running a series of articles under the general title “The Corbyn Revolution,” analyzing Jeremy Corbyn’s programme for a Labour government, the Financial Times has delivered its verdict. The FT’s Sep 8 editorial laments:

(We face) a hideous choice between a likely no-deal Brexit under Mr Johnson’s Conservatives, or the revolutionary socialist project of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour.

It rejects both and instead calls for a “caretaker government” of the “Rebel Alliance” of pro-EU MPs, comprising Blairites, Lib Dems, the SNP and two dozen recently expelled Conservatives. This would be “headed by a more trustworthy and less divisive figure than Mr Corbyn” to guarantee against a no-deal Brexit and then hand over power to a more stable government. However, the FT is acutely aware that, given the absolute dysfunction of the ruling Conservatives and the hatred towards them among working people, there is a possibility of a Labour government coming to power, or at least being essential to the formation of a “government of national unity” made up of the pro-Remain parties. To meet this possibility, the FT series leaves no doubt about what is expected of the Corbynites. Corbyn has been put on notice by his masters that he must either withdraw or renege on his election promises and do exactly as he is told by the financial elite, or he will be put out of office one way or another. This is threatened despite the FT’s very sober assessment of Corbyn and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell’s strictly limited economic programme. One FT article notes that Labour’s pledges on infrastructure spending will run up against the limit set by the party’s own “Fiscal Credibility Rule,” devised by McDonnell before the 2017 General Election. Another points out that the tax rises promised in Labour’s 2017 manifesto, assuming they were actually implemented, would not be enough to fund the party’s current pledges, even while “ending austerity” on only the most minimal of definition. Corbyn’s Labour would be no more “generous” to the NHS than the Tory party, notes the FT. Whereas Labour claimed it would raise £48b/yr from tax increases, the Institute for Public Policy Research has suggested that more than £100b/yr would be needed to end austerity and enable “prosperity and justice.” Yet in the same series a quote from Terry Scuoler, former head of the manufacturer’s lobby Made UK, describes the prospect of a Labour government as “nightmarish” A “senior Labour figure” claims:

They don’t give a fuck about the city of London!

The FT’s editors screech:

A Labour government under Mr Corbyn would destroy investor confidence and usher in economic disaster.

Another article in the series, headlined “UK’s Labour would seize £300b of company shares,” deals with McDonnell’s proposed transfer of 10% of shares from all companies with more than 250 employees to their workers. Under the scheme, employees would be eligible to receive up to £500/yr in dividends, with the rest going to social funds controlled by the government. The scheme would be gradually implemented over 10 years, with the FT and its sources noting that it would likely be held up in the courts and WTO for even longer. It does nothing to touch the capitalist profit system, yet its impact is described in apocalyptic language. The FT notes that the Adam Smith Institute rails against “expropriation” and “the biggest raid on all of our nest eggs in living memory.” The FT gravely cites “long-standing Marxist” McDonnell’s comment of several years ago:

Change doesn’t come from people having tea at the Ritz. It comes from people storming the Ritz.

The source of the contradiction between this furious reaction and Corbyn’s very timid programme is twofold. Firstly, the standard set for any forthcoming government is not simply to preserve the power of the ruling class, but to respond to the demands of an unprecedented international capitalist crisis and cut-throat struggle for profitability and geostrategic advantage. A Corbyn government will be required to deepen the vicious attacks on workplace and social conditions begun under Margaret Thatcher. There is no difference whatsoever between the Leave and Remain factions of the ruling elite (Corbyn supports remaining in the EU) on the necessity to wage war on the working class. In Nov 2016, Thatcher’s former chancellor Nigel Lawson wrote:
The Brexit project is our opportunity to finish the Thatcher revolution.

Now the FT, speaking for the pro-Remain sections of UK business, asserts:

Mr Corbyn (might) undo much of the Thatcherite revolution of the 1980s, while often brutal, led to a necessary shift in the balance of power between labour and capital that helped deliver stronger economic growth.

Secondly, the relentless attacks made against the slavishly compliant figure of Corbyn serve as a coded message to the strategists in the ruling class. The social elite undoubtedly fear a “revolutionary socialist” development from below and “expropriation.” However, they know that the threat doesn’t come from Corbyn’s warmed over reformist nostrums, but from the seething discontent in the working class after years of their living standards being decimated by successive governments of all political stripes. The attacks on Corbyn are a warning to him, McDonnell et al that they must toe the line or they will be dispensed with. The FT states:

Mr McDonnell’s first task may be to say ‘no’ and disappoint many people on the radical left.

In other words, Labour’s first task will be to attack the working class as brutally as the Tories. In an interview with the FT, one of Corbyn’s advisers claims French Socialist Party President of the 1980s Francois Mitterrand as a predecessor. Even given Mitterrand’s own despicable record, this is an absurd comparison. The Socialist Party president came to power in 1981 in a period when crumbs could still be given to the working class. A more accurate antecedent to a Corbyn-led Labour government is Alexis Tsipras’s Syriza party in Greece. Elected in 2015 on an anti-austerity programme, Syriza instead carried out deeper cuts and more sweeping privatisations than its predecessors, backed by an army of riot police. This has resulted in the devastating impoverishment of Greek workers and their families. Corbyn has maintained close relations with Syriza going back as far as 2012, and met Tsipras for discussions on several occasions as the Syriza leader was busy imposing austerity on the Greek population. At a conference of the Party of European Socialists in Brussels in Oct 2017, after Syriza had been in power for nearly three years, Tsipras told Corbyn:

Nice to see you. We’re very proud of what you have accomplished.

Corbyn responded:

We are following your example. I believe we will succeed soon.

Under today’s conditions, the assault Corbyn would carry out against the British working class would make Syriza’s record in office pale by comparison. Whereas Greece is a relatively small and uninfluential country on the periphery of Europe, Britain is one of the world’s major imperialist powers—home to one of the most important centres of global finance, and a leading military partner of NATO. Not one inch can be given to the working class if British imperialism’s world position is to be secured. Under instruction from the ruling class, Corbyn’s pledges to end austerity, nationalise utilities and railways, abolish tuition fees, and everything else would melt into thin air, to be replaced by a programme of deepening austerity, rampant militarism and attacks on democratic rights. Since taking the Labour leadership four years ago, Corbyn’s record is an uninterrupted line of conciliation, retreats and betrayals carried out in the name of serving the “national interest”—from working with the unions to ensure the isolation and defeats of strikes, to reversing his opposition to NATO and the EU, to allowing his supporters to be witch-hunted by the Blairites out of the party on bogus charges of anti-Semitism. If Corbyn was not able to fight a few hundred politically toxic Blairites and kick them out, despite having the backing of hundreds of thousands of Labour members and supporters, he will do whatever he is told when it comes to defending the interests of the predatory financial elite of the City of London and British imperialism internationally.

absolute russiagate horseshit on stilts

NYTs: Main source for anti-Russia campaign may have been a double agent
Andre Damon, WSWS, Sep 11 2019

In a further exposure of the concocted claims of the NYT and the Demagogs of Russian “subversion” of the Pindo political system, the NYT acknowledged Tuesday that the key source used by the intelligence agencies to claim Pres Putin’s direct involvement “could be a double agent.” On Oct 7 2016, the DHS and the ODNI said they were “confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from Pindo persons and institutions.” According to this narrative, amplified by the Demagog Party and the NYT itself, Putin personally intervened to try to get Donald Trump elected by directing the Russian state to steal incriminating emails from the Clinton campaign and release them to WikiLeaks for publication. But this sweeping conspiracy theory, alleging a plot spanning continents involving Russia, a sovereign state, the Thug presidential nominee and WikiLeaks, has fallen apart. In August, a federal court dismissed a DNC civil suit against Trump, the Russian government and Julian Assange. Now the NYT, the main editorial outlet driving the Demagogs’ anti-Russia campaign has admitted that serious concerns were raised within the Pindo intelligence establishment about the primary source behind its hyperventilating denunciations of Russian “meddling,” later identified by the Russian press as Oleg Smolenkov. The NYT reported:

The Moscow informant gained an influential position that came with access to the highest level of the Kremlin. He became one of the CIA’s most important and highly protected assets. He was instrumental to the CIA’s most explosive conclusion about Russia’s interference campaign: that Pres Putin ordered and orchestrated it himself. As the Pindo government’s best insight into the thinking of and orders from Mr Putin, the source was also key to the CIA’s assessment that he affirmatively favored Trump’s election and personally ordered the hacking of the DNC.

CNN reported that he was able to photograph documents on Putin’s desk and send them to Faschingstein. There was just one problem. When Pindostan, concerned that media reports of Russian “meddling” might compromise their asset in the Kremlin, offered to exfiltrate their spy from Russia, where he risked a life sentence or execution if caught, he at first refused, leading to the conclusion that he might be a double agent feeding false information to the Pindo creeple on behalf of elements within the Russian state. The NYT wrote:

In 2016, the source’s rejection of the CIA’s initial offer of exfiltration prompted doubts among some counter-intelligence officials. They wondered whether the informant had been turned and had become a double agent, secretly betraying his Pindo handlers. That would almost certainly mean that some of the information the informant provided about the Russian interference campaign or Mr Putin’s intentions would have been inaccurate. Some operatives had other reasons to suspect the source could be a double agent, according to two retired boxtops, but they declined to explain further.

Ultimately, after the NYT, the WaPo and other major media outlets published reports about the unnamed source, Pindostan exfiltrated the spy, who is now living under his real name in Faschingstein. Dmitri Peskov said Smolenkov did work for the Putin government, “but he was never a high-ranking official” and was fired two years ago. In the name of combating “Russian meddling,” politicians pressured Pindo technology firms to undertake the most onerous program of political censorship in the history of the internet in Pindostan. Accounts with millions of followers were deleted overnight, while Google manipulated search results to bury left-wing viewpoints. There was a massive effort to poison public opinion against Julian Assange, the courageous publisher and exposer of war crimes. He was slandered by the Demagogs and the NYT as a Russian agent who colluded with Trump, setting the stage for his imprisonment. More information will no doubt emerge about the background and possible motivations of Smolenkov but regardless, the fact that the source behind allegations the newspaper breathlessly proclaimed as fact had serious credibility problems makes clear that the NYT made no serious efforts to question, much less validate, its chosen political narrative. This newspaper functions as a clearing-house for unquestioned, unexamined dispatches from within the Pindo intelligence apparatus. Its role in promoting the Bush 43 administration’s lies about WMDs in Iraq was not an aberration but its modus operandi.

yosemite sam’s face hits the fan

Trump fires Bolton as national security advisor (NSA)
Patrick Martin, WSWS, Sep 11 2019

Pres Trump fired Bolton Monday morning in an action revealing the deepening crisis of the administration and bitter conflicts within official Faschingstein after a series of foreign policy debacles. Trump made the announcement on Twitter only minutes after the White House had announced an afternoon press conference for Bolton, Pompeo and Mnuchin, where they were to discuss new financial sanctions on “terrorist” groups and their alleged supporters. The suddenness of the decision and the acrimonious character of Trump’s tweets, as well as Bolton’s claim that he had resigned and not been fired, testify to the intensity of the internal disputes within the White House. It is clear that long-standing differences between Trump and Bolton came to a head last week over a planned agreement with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which was to be ratified at a secret weekend meeting with Taliban representatives and Pres Ghani at Camp David. Trump revealed plans for the meeting only after publicly canceling it via Twitter on Saturday. While the president claimed the cancellation was provoked by a Taliban car bombing that killed a Pindo soldier last Thursday, it is now clear that it was conflict in Faschingstein, not Kabul, that led to the meeting being called off. The WaPo reported on Aug 30 that Bolton was being excluded from administration councils on Afghanistan because of his opposition to any deal with the Taliban:

His opposition to the diplomatic effort in Afghanistan has irritated Pres Trump, and led aides to leave the NSC out of sensitive discussions about the agreement.

Bolton’s isolation on Afghanistan became particularly apparent last month when the president’s top officials descended on Trump’s New Jersey golf resort to discuss the peace deal that would be presented to Afghan and Taliban officials in Kabul and Doha. In addition to the president, the Aug 16 meeting included Esper, Dunford, Pence, Pompeo, Haspel and Khalilzad. Bolton was not originally invited out of concern that his team would oppose the agenda and leak the details later. Bolton was believed to be the source of leaks to the press about the internal divisions over Afghanistan. He had particularly angered Trump by suggesting that like him, Pence was opposed to the deal with the Taliban. At least one press report last week said Bolton and Pompeo were no longer talking. Bolton is the Trump administration official most closely identified with a policy of combining military intervention, economic sanctions and diplomatic threats to achieve regime-change in a series of countries long targeted by Faschingstein including Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. He was one of the most vociferous warmongers in the Bush 43 administration and remains an adamant defender of the Pindo invasion and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq. According to numerous press reports, Bolton pushed hard for the policy of regime-change in Venezuela on which the Trump administration embarked in January, declaring the little-known Juan Guaido the legitimate president and seeking to instigate a military coup against Pres Maduro. Eight months on, Maduro remains in power and Trump has reportedly lost faith in the effort, which has not brought the quick political victory that Bolton apparently promised.

Trump and Bolton also parted company over Iran policy, as Trump decided, only 10 minutes before the missiles were to be fired, not to launch strikes against Iran after IRGC shot down an unmanned Pindo drone over Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf. Bolton was also reportedly opposed to Trump’s decision to meet Kim Jong-un on Jun 30, where Trump took a symbolic step across the border into North Korean territory. The firing of Bolton is in no sense a turn by Trump away from the use of military force to achieve his foreign policy goals. It is only a month since Trump mused that he could win victory in Afghanistan in a matter of days if he were willing to kill 10 million people, an indication of the types of discussions being held in the White House. The conflict between Trump and Bolton is not a struggle between “hawks” and “doves” within the administration. It is part of a conflict over imperialist strategy that has dominated Faschingstein for the past three years. Trump has tended to view the conflicts in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, which he inherited from Bush and Obama, as distractions from his central focus on the threat posed to Pindo economic dominance by China. His policies of trade warfare and military provocation in the South China Sea, as well as his overtures to North Korea, are interrelated parts of his anti-China focus. But the Pindo foreign policy establishment as a whole, including its Demagog wing, views Afghanistan as a decisive test of Pindo global leadership. In their view its loss would have a shattering impact on the worldwide position of Pindo imperialism, like that of Vietnam. Pindostan has been involved in Afghanistan for more than 40 years. Obama called Afghanistan the “good war,” as opposed to Iraq, and escalated the conflict by deploying more than 100,000 Pindo troops. Trump proceeds on a transactional basis, feeling he can “do a deal” with the Taliban, Kim Jong-un or even the Iranian theocracy with the right mixture of carrots and sticks.

The initial Demagog Party response to Bolton’s firing was focused largely on concerns that the evident disarray in the White House might do damage to the interests of Pindo imperialism around the world. The instability of the Trump administration is reflected in its turnover, with three NSAs, two Secs of State, three Secs of Defense, and acting chiefs in a half dozen top positions. Bolton served only 17 months as national security advisor, following Gen McMaster (13 months) and Gen (Retd) Flynn (23 days). One press commentary calculated that, counting the acting NSAs who stepped in for Flynn and now Bolton, Trump has had five NSAs in less than three years, while Clinton, Bush and Obama combined had NSAs in 24 years. The Demagogs, like Bolton, oppose a deal that would in effect turn over Kabul to the Taliban in exchange for a promise of “good behavior.” Substantial sections of the foreign policy establishment believe such a policy undermines the central strategic aim animating Pindo foreign policy for decades: domination of the Eurasian landmass. This underlies the Demagog Party’s demand to escalate the conflict with Russia and its commitment to war in Afghanistan. Regardless of what the 2020 Demagog presidential candidates say, they have no intention of pulling out of Afghanistan. In this, the Demagogs are closer to Bolton’s foreign policy than they are to Trump’s. Since Trump entered the White House, and even before, the opposition of the Demagog Party has been focused on his desire to pull back in the Middle East, particularly Syria, in order to refocus Pindo efforts on China. Trump sought agreement with Russia on this course, and the Demagogs fomented the bogus anti-Russian campaign, including the Mueller investigation, to brand any retreat from confrontation with Russia as treason. The question of reaching a settlement with the Taliban in Afghanistan has brought the conflicts over the direction of Pindo foreign policy to a head.

jew-nazis everywhere

Occupation good for Palestinians, says Israeli opposition chief
Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada, Sep 10 2019

Benny Gantz, chief of the Israeli army during Israel’s 2014 massacre in Gaza, is borrowing apartheid South Africa’s talking points to boost his election campaign. Gantz heads the allegedly center-left opposition coalition hoping to unseat Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel’s elections later this month. In a campaign attack on Israel’s PM on Monday, Gantz declared that, unlike Netanyahu, . Gantz claimed:

I would have allowed Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib to visit Israel and the occupied territories, to see with their own eyes that the best place to be an Arab in the Middle East is in Israel … and the second best place to be an Arab in the Middle East is the West Bank.

Gantz’s contention that Israeli military occupation and colonization is a blessing to Palestinians is a direct echo of South Africa’s apartheid rulers, who insisted that their brutal white supremacist regime was good for Black people. Ben White pointed to a 1977 NYT interview with John Vorster, who was then prime minister of South Africa’s racist regime. Vorster claimed:

The standard of living of the South African Black is two to five times higher than that of any Black country in Africa.

Even Israel's leading *opposition* politician echoes South African Apartheid era talking points.https://t.co/CsOp8ZR8YD pic.twitter.com/Egayq8mTeI

— Ben White (@benabyad) September 10, 2019

This assertion was a staple of South African propaganda as the global anti-apartheid movement gained strength during the 1980s. It is not surprising, as colonialists always claim that their violent rule is a gift to the people they exploit and oppress.

Gantz is the cliched colonial overlord who thinks his people are so enlightened, and ours so barbaric, that he's doing us a favor by keeping us under his military boot. https://t.co/XgY42DmVqL

— A Man in the Sun 🌞 (@AManInTheSun) September 10, 2019

The echoes of apartheid South Africa’s propaganda in Israel’s current efforts are strong:

Apartheid advertising, Israel 2019 vs South Africa 1987 pic.twitter.com/FsfaYUS1Xo

— Michael Bueckert (@mbueckert) August 24, 2019

And similar to the South African racists who tried to fight the isolation of their regime, Gantz declared:

Everybody who cooperates with BDS is operating against the state of Israel.

The former army chief also claimed that BDS is a “form of anti-Semitism.” It is in fact an anti-racist movement rooted in international law and universal rights. Gantz’s statements show that despite efforts to whitewash him as an alternative, he represents nothing different from Netanyahu. Israel’s re-do election falls on Sep 17. That same day there will be a court hearing in the Netherlands in Ismail Ziada’s lawsuit against Benny Gantz.

PLEASE SHARE WIDELY The #Ziada court case on September 17 in the Hague is the first ever civil claim against the #Israeli army for killing civilians during its attacks on #Gaza in 2014. We are demanding #justice for #warcrimes You can read more here https://t.co/iT7Q61Yqej

— Ziada Justice Campaign (@JusticeZiada) September 9, 2019

Ziada, a Palestinian-Dutch citizen, is suing Gantz and another Israeli commander for the Jul 20 2014 attack on his family’s home in Gaza’s al-Bureij refugee camp. The Israeli bombing killed seven people: Ismail Ziada’s 70-year-old mother Muftia Ziada, three brothers, a sister-in-law, a 12-year-old nephew and a friend who was visiting.

The 2014 assault on Gaza commanded by Gantz killed 2,200 Palestinians, including 550 children. Far from being ashamed of his crimes, Gantz actually ran ads in Israel’s April election, which failed to produce a clear winner, thus precipitating this September’s poll, boasting about how many Palestinians he slaughteredin 2014. Gantz’s blood-soaked record and advocacy of colonialism also provide a yardstick by which to measure the EU’s alleged support for human rights. Instead of standing with Gantz’s victims and their campaign for justice, the EU is boosting the perpetrator. Just last month, Emanuele Giaufret, the EU ambassador in Tel Aviv, and his European colleagues met for a cozy chat with Gantz. Giaufret tweeted:

We look forward to continuing the dialogue.

With my EU colleagues it was a great pleasure to host @gantzbe today as part of our regular 🇪🇺 Ambassadors' meetings with 🇮🇱 political leaders to discuss the domestic, regional & security situation and EU-IL cooperation. We look forward to continuing the dialogue https://t.co/YkzmOauhHJ

— Emanuele Giaufret (@EGiaufretEU) August 29, 2019

It goes to show that there is no level of racism and crime that an Israeli leader can commit against Palestinians that will disqualify them from the EU’s warm embrace. Let’s hope Dutch judges have the sense of justice, decency and courage that most of Europe’s diplomats and politicians so abjectly lack.

bourgeois turds

EU creates defence and space branch ‘to complement NATO’
Robin Emmott, Reuters, Sep 11 2019

BRUSSELS – The EU will create a new defence and space arm to help fund, develop and deploy armed forces, the bloc’s incoming chief executive said on Tuesday, naming an ally of Pres Macron for the role. The creation of a defence branch in the European Commission, long resisted by Britain, is an attempt by Pres-elect Ursula von der Leyen to stem a decline in EU influence, as it faces heavy Pindo pressure to do more for its own security. Von der Leyen, a former German defence minister, told a news conference:

The EU will never be a military alliance, but the EU member states have been told many times that common procurement for their armed forces is of utmost importance. This effort will complement NATO, which will always be the collective defence.

Sylvie Goulard, a former long-time MEP currently at France’s central bank, will be responsible for the new directorate general, as commissioner for industrial policy. Although von der Leyen gave few details, the defence arm will build on an EU military pact signed in late 2017 to integrate defence forces by working on new weapons and contributing to rapid deployments. Faschingstein supports the initiative, but has also warned against shutting Pindo companies out of defence contracts. With Britain set to leave the EU, Germany has backed the French-led effort to identify weak spots in European armies with the goal of filling those gaps together as a bloc. Space is also becoming an area where the EU wants to develop technology jointly. The plans will rely on a proposed €13b defence fund for developing and buying weapons together, with money from the EU’s common budget for defence research. Von der Leyen named Goulard on Tuesday along with commissioners from each member statr to her new team which will take office on Nov 1.

Next EU chief says she does not see Turkish progress in EU entry bid
Reuters, Sep 11 2019

BRUSSELS – Incoming EC Pres Ursula von der Leyen said on Tuesday that Turkey had not made progress on key conditions to allow it to become a member of the EU. She told a news conference at which she announced her future team of commissioners:

As regards Turkey, I have not seen this progress in the last years. On the contrary, Turkey needs to show that it wants to be closer to European values, to European rules, the rule of law, liberty and fundamental values.

dominic’s black magic

Boris Johnson Secretly Asked For A Massive Amount Of User Data To Be Tracked. Dominic Cummings Said It’s “TOP PRIORITY.”
Alex Spence, BuzzFeed, Sep 10 2019

Boris Johnson has secretly ordered the Cabinet Office to turn the government’s public internet service into a platform for “targeted and personalised information” to be gathered in the run-up to Brexit, BuzzFeed News has learned. In a move that has alarmed Whitehall boxtrops, the prime minister has instructed departments to share data they collect about usage of the GOV.UK portal so that it can feed into preparations for leaving the EU at the end of next month. Dominic Cummings emailed senior officials instructing them to make sure that ministers, department heads and political aides know that the instruction is “TOP PRIORITY,” according to leaked government documents. In a personal minute on Aug 19 to members of the cabinet’s EU exit operations (“XO”) committee, which includes Javid, Patel and Gove and is responsible for no-deal preparations, Johnson said centralised data was also necessary to accelerate his ambitions for a digital revolution in public services. Johnson wrote:

I expect everyone to act immediately to execute the above actions.

Any delays were to be reported to his office right away. Cummings reiterated the urgency of the direction in an email to senior officials on Aug 28:

To stress: as per the PM note to all Cabinet and ministers yesterday, please ensure that all ministers, Perm Secs, and spads know that this is TOP PRIORITY. We must get this stuff finalised ASAP, and there are many interdependencies resting on this happening. The PM says his office must be informed of anything that will delay the GDS/comms plan by 24 hours and CDL will deal with any problems/delays today.

A govt spox told BuzzFeed News:

Across the industry, it is normal for organisations to look at how their websites are used to make sure they provide the best possible service. Individual government departments currently collect anonymised user data when people use GOV.UK. The GDS is working on a project to bring this anonymous data together, to make sure people can access all the services they need as easily as possible. No personal data is collected at any point during the process, and all activity is fully compliant with our legal and ethical obligations.

However, BuzzFeed News understands that some Whitehall boxtopsa are concerned about such an enormous transfer of data being done at speed behind closed doors at a time of national crisis. One of them remarked that it was not obvious how the Cabinet Office having access to all the GOV.UK data from across Whitehall would aid its Brexit preparations. Privacy campaigners, policy experts and opposition politicians said the move raised a huge number of legal and ethical questions. Privacy experts said that pooling the user data from across government would give GDS a detailed picture of people’s online interactions with government, and this should not be done without the public’s knowledge and rigorous checks to ensure that data rights will be protected. Javier Ruiz Diaz of the Open Rights Group told BuzzFeed News:

Secret orders are not the way to handle these complex policies, that have generated huge controversies in the past. We need consultation and public debate to build social consensus for any new gathering of personal data, including the appropriate safeguards.

Gavin Freeguard of the Institute for Government said:

More intelligent and joined-up use of data could be a big improvement for Brexit preparations and elsewhere across government, but doing data in the dark could lead to a loss of public trust and make citizens much more hesitant in allowing their data to be used in future. Citizens have a right to know how their data is being used. Government should be having the debates and discussion about the appropriate use of data with the public and in public, rather than sending secret notes to cabinet committees.

Labour said it was suspicious of the urgency and timing of the demand, given that it came as Downing Street was preparing for a political showdown over Brexit and potentially a general election. Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson told BuzzFeed News:

These leaked memos should set off serious alarm bells. How does profiling citizens help with no-deal preparation? Why is government prioritising it when we are just six weeks away from Boris Johnson’s own Brexit deadline, and why the threat to departments that refuse to comply? Given Dominic Cummings’ focus on data science in the Vote Leave campaign, this sudden urgent need for big data collection is extremely concerning. We need immediate clarity about how citizens’ data will be protected and assurances that it won’t be misused for party political purposes.

Cummings, the combative former head of Vote Leave, has a keen understanding of the power of data. The pro-Brexit campaign’s success in the 2016 referendum was partly due to its use of digital technology to target messages. In a personal blog in Oct 2016, before entering Downing Street, Cummings mused about the potential for data to disrupt and transform public services, writing:

One of the many ways in which Whitehall and Downing Street should be revolutionised is to integrate physicist-dominated data science in decision-making. There really are vast improvements possible in Government that could save hundreds of billions and avoid many disasters. Leaving the EU also requires the destruction of the normal Whitehall / Downing Street system and the development of new methods. A dysfunctional broken system is hardly likely to achieve the most complex UK government project since beating Nazi Germany.

GOV.UK is the British government’s public internet platform, providing information about and links to services from passports to pensions. Since the start of this month, it has also been the hub for the government’s publicity campaign to prepare voters and businesses for a no-deal Brexit. The government is running advertisements on Facebook and elsewhere urging people to “Get Ready For Brexit,” directing them to GOV.UK for more information.

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster @MichaelGove has launched the new 'Get Ready For Brexit' campaign. Find out what you need to do to get ready for 31 October at https://t.co/4AnRTPHzBo pic.twitter.com/9NoZEMcqc1

— Cabinet Office (@cabinetofficeuk) September 1, 2019

At present, usage of GOV.UK is tracked by individual departments, not collected centrally. According to the documents seen by BuzzFeed News:

The Cabinet Office’s digital unit the government digital service (GDS) will add an additional layer of tracking to enable them to collect data for the entire journey of a user as they land on GOV.UK from a Google advert or an email link, read content on GOV.UK, click on a link taking them from GOV.UK to a service, and then move onwards through the service journey to completion.

In the personal minute, Johnson told members of the XO committee:

GDS has been asked to turn the GOV.UK portal into a platform to allow targeted and personalised information to be gathered, analysed and fed back actively to support key decision-making. Departments need to send data to GDS and work in partnership so that it can build a single consolidated view of how citizens interact with Government through GOV.UK. You may need to reallocate digital resources and staff to work on the central analytics platform being developed by GDS as part of the Insights programme to support Brexit preparations for a period of up to 6 months. Better data analytics will be crucial to improving digital delivery of public services in the long run. At the heart of that is our approach to UK digital identity, transitioning to a model driven by ubiquitous digital identity standards. There are decisions ahead on how best to accelerate convergence onto these standards, including next steps on Verify. XO has tasked GDS with developing a digital identity accelerated implementation plan, in cooperation with others, and I would ask you all to engage in that work urgently. In the short term, there are also digital identity factors that relate to preparations for Oct 31. There is a desire to develop personalised ‘account creation’ feasability studies pre-Oct 31 which can deliver benefits shortly after. The greater the volume of data structured through personalised ID, the more impact the outcome. Steps that government can take to increase the volume now whilst continuing to deliver critical services, must be looked at. This includes fully exploiting various current pilots such as use of passport data for identity checking and that new services are meeting an appropriate identity standard that can help not hinder convergence. The accelerated implementation plan can pick this up.

Verify is the government’s flagship digital identity scheme. It was meant to be used by 25 million people by 2020, but it failed to meet performance targets and its future is now uncertain. A Public Accounts Committee report concluded in May:

People using Verify have been badly served by an onerous system that is not fit for purpose.

In a separate document seen by BuzzFeed News, Depts were told:

GDS has been asked to collect data about key Brexit services by the end of Aug 30. We have identified a subset of key Brexit services and are already working with those service teams. We are now working to add all other services, including those not related to Brexit.

Depts were asked to sign an MoU setting out the terms of the sharing arrangement and to return it to the Cabinet Office by the end of Sep 3.

ireland

DUP leader Arlene Foster and her deputy Nigel Dodds have arrived at No 10 for talks with Boris Johnson.
Andrew Sparrow, Groon, Sep 10 2019

Arlene Foster and Nigel Dodds arrive at Downing Street. Photo: Peter Summers

NI-only backstop ‘simply a non-runner,’ says DUP boxtop
Andrew Sparrow, Groon, Sep 10 2019

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the DUP chief whip, was on BBC World at One. Like his boss, Arlene Foster, he insisted that Boris Johnson would not sanction an NI-only backstop. He explained:

I don’t see the prime minister who appointed himself as the minister for the Union agreeing to an arrangement that separates NI from GB in trading terms, so I think that this idea that you have an NI-only backstop, where you have a trade border in the Irish Sea between NI and GB, is simply a non-runner. In any event, it would contravene the core principles of the Good Friday agreement, the Belfast agreement. The solution to avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland is not to create a second border in the Irish Sea, because I think that would be deeply destabilising.

He also rejected suggestions the DUP was losing influence over No 10, saying:

I think the idea that our influence is waning flies in the face of reality. Our leader will be meeting with Boris Johnson, we are plugged into the ongoing discussions about alternative arrangements, we have a significant role to play and, therefore, I would argue that our influence remains.

Downing Street has denied wanting an NI-only backstop. But there have been multiple claims that this is the direction in which Johnson is heading, including from the EU’s new trade commissioner.

EU looks to NI-only backstop to break Brexit deadlock
Daniel Boffey, Graun, Sep 10 2019

Brussels – The EU is pinning hopes on British negotiators reverting to the Northern Ireland-only backstop previously rejected by Theresa May as a threat to the constitutional integrity of the UK. With Boris Johnson faced with the choice of breaking his word and extending the UK’s EU membership beyond Oct 31 or bringing back a tweaked deal for a last-gasp vote in parliament, officials and diplomats have expressed hope that the prime minister will stage a government U-turn. EU sources insisted there was no other approach that could work with the negotiations otherwise doomed to hit a “zombie stage” given the likelihood of an imminent general election. Nathalie Loiseau, a former French minister of EU affairs, said:

We don’t know what mandate has the prime minister to propose something, and obviously there is a strong division between the parliament and the government.

It is hoped in Brussels that Johnson’s EU envoy, David Frost, will further pursue an NI-only backstop during meetings with the commission’s Brexit taskforce on Wednesday and Friday. The UK government has sought to pour cold water on the suggestion. A No 10 spox said:

We are not seeking an NI-only backstop.

The newly nominated EU commissioner for trade, Phil Hogan, a former Irish minister, told the Irish Times he believed the “penny is finally dropping” in Johnson’s government over the lack of alternatives. Johnson has said he wants to remove the Irish backstop from the withdrawal agreement as it would tie NI into the single market and the whole of the UK into a shared customs territory with the EU. Johnson has described the arrangement as “undemocratic” and railed against signing a treaty that would be “inconsistent with the sovereignty of the UK” by tying it into a customs union. But his proposal in recent days of a single all-Ireland agrifood zone has offered some hope that the government may return to the initial EU suggestion of an arrangement that solely keeps NI within the EU’s structures. May, whose government was reliant on the support of the DUP for her working majority, had rejected NI alone staying in the single market and customs union on the grounds that “no British PM” could accept such a regulatory border being drawn in the Irish Sea. But Hogan said that Johnson, who visited the Irish taoiseach Leo Varadkar in Dublin on Monday, had offered some grounds for optimism in his recent talks. Hogan warned that the single agrifood zone was some distance from a solution to the Brexit impasse. He said:

Mr Johnson has made a proposal in the last few days talking about an all-Ireland food zone. That is certainly a clear indication of divergence between NI and the Republic of Ireland/the EU, and the rest of the UK. This is the first time that this has been spoken about by a British PM where they are prepared to accept some level of divergence between NI and the rest of the UK. If we can build on that we certainly might get closer to one another in terms of a possible outcome. It would have to include all goods, in terms of any agreement. I remain hopeful that the penny is finally dropping with the UK that there are pragmatic and practical solutions that can actually be introduced into the debate at this stage, albeit at the eleventh hour, that may find some common ground between the EU and the UK. The taoiseach has indicated in the last 24 hours that the NI-only backstop is quite an interesting idea to revisit.

Fabian Zulig of the European Policy Centre thinktank in Brussels said:

The only point of the talks in Brussels would be to discuss an extension of Article 50 beyond Oct 31, or the detail of a NI-only arrangement. But in reality I don’t believe that the UK government wants to go down this route, so at the moment I don’t see anything of substance that is being discussed, because nothing else can be opened.

Following his nomination on Tuesday by incoming EC head Ursula von der Leyen, Hogan is set to take over any trade talks with the UK once the country leaves the bloc, with the former deputy chief EU negotiator, Sabine Weyand, as his director general. Hogan said:

The establishment of a new negotiating team will take probably six to eight months once we know what the outcome of the present negotiations are. Then I expect it will take a number of years before we conclude the negotiations. The divorce proceedings have to be completed first, before the future relationship, which would include a free trade agreement. But we will not be starting from scratch in the case of the UK, because they have been part of the EU for the last 45 years. I expect that we will be able to move more quickly than we would in any other trade negotiation.

Downing Street lobby briefing – summary
Andrew Sparrow, Groon, Sep 10 2019

Here are some more lines from the Downing Street lobby briefing. The prime minister’s spokesman confirmed that the government intended to publish a revised version of the government’s Operational Yellowhammer report about what might happen in the event of a no-deal Brexit. But he refused to say any more about how the government would respond to yesterday’s Commons vote saying the government should publish all documents relating to Yellowhammer, as well as private messages from nine government aides relating to prorogation. He said the government would respond to the vote in due course. But he also said the request for private messages was disproportionate and unprecedented. The spokesman dismissed suggestions that Johnson is considering an NI-only backstop. The spokesman said:

We are not seeking an NI-only backstop.

The spokesman suggested that Johnson would be holding more meetings with EU leaders soon. There are reports today saying the PM will go to Brussels next week. Asked about this, the spokesman said Johnson would be speaking with other EU leaders in the coming weeks and that his travel plans would be announced in the usual way, nearer the time. He also said David Frost, the PM’s chief Brexit adviser, would be in Brussels for talks with the EU’s Brexit team tomorrow and on Friday. The spokesman confirmed that Johnson would meet Arlene Foster and Nigel Dodds, leader and deputy leader of the DUP, in Downing Street this afternoon.

Any Brexit deal must be acceptable to DUP, says Ahern
Lisa O’Carroll, Groan, Sep 10 2019

The former Irish prime minister and joint architect of the NI peace process Bertie Ahern has said it is imperative that any Brexit solution be acceptable to the DUP. His intervention is a rare warning by a prominent politician in the Republic of Ireland that imposing a deal not supported by the DUP, such as one with a NI-only backstop, would imperil a lasting solution. Ahern said the principle of “parity of esteem”, one of the core stated values of the 1998 Good Friday agreement, was not just for nationalists, and anything that was not backed by both communities in NI would be doomed to failure. He said:

Any solution has to include the Unionist people, because parity of esteem in the Good Friday agreement is both sides. To do a deal through Europe with Britain that creates a problem for the Unionist community and will be rejected by the English nationalists in the Commons, that’s not really an option.

Ahern’s comments came as the DUP leader, Arlene Foster, demanded a meeting with Boris Johnson amid fears he is prepared to back a NI-only backstop, which her party rejected in 2017. Ahern, along with Tony Blair, played a critical role in getting warring factions in NI to lay down their arms and opposing political parties to sign a lasting peace deal. Ahern’s intervention comes at a critical time in the Brexit talks, with speculation that Johnson is prepared to return to the plan for a NI-only backstop, which emerged during the first phase of talks in 2017 but was abandoned after the DUP objected. The former taoiseach said he believed there could be merit in a NI-only backstop if the Stormont assembly had a role, because the DUP might support that. Referring to the DUP’s leader in the Commons, he said:

I think Nigel Dodds has given an indication that if the executive had a role and future laws and regulations were coming out of the EU and they had a say – not a veto, he didn’t say a veto – then perhaps that is something that is workable.

Mirroring Ahern’s remarks about the unionist community, Foster told an audience on Monday evening that it was important they engage with those of a nationalist background. Ahern said he was implacably opposed to any checks at or near the Irish border, saying there would be civil disobedience among border communities and the checks would be unsustainable. He said:

The idea of checking a guy leaving Dundalk with four dozen heads of cabbage and going to Newry and counting them up on the border is not on. It would be stupid to try that. I don’t want to say it would lead to violence but it wouldn’t be sustainable, it wouldn’t be workable.

Under EU law, all animals and fresh produce including raw meat must undergo mandatory checks and last week the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, said there would be checks near the border. Ahern said they would need to be done near the border but “back in offices, point of manufacture or point of distribution.” He said the scenes in parliament over the last week showed “the level of raw bitterness” in British politics, but Ireland must not get dragged into domestic battles. He said:

We have to leave all these clouds to fade into the sky and keep our focus on the Barnier commission and continue to negotiate, if there is anything to negotiate. We have to at least have an open mind on what might come forward, so we are seen by the 27 member states that we’re not heads in the sand, that we have a negotiating hand that is different.

Foster warns Boris Johnson that NI backstop would amount to ‘break-up of UK’
Andrew Sparrow, Groan, Sep 10 2019

Anyone who has followed Boris Johnson’s career in detail will know that there is a long list of people who have put their trust in him and who at some point discover they have been let down. Are the DUP about to join the club? As my colleague Lisa O’Carroll wrote in a post on this blog yesterday, there is increasing speculation that Boris Johnson is moving towards accepting some version of a NI-only backstop as a solution to the Brexit crisis. Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt went into this in more detail in a report yesterday. Here is an excerpt from a blog setting out his understanding of Johnson’s thinking.

The Tories familiar with Boris Johnson’s thinking say he is now willing to contemplate a version of the so-called “NI-only backstop.” Under this plan, NI would be closely bound to the EU on areas where there are already elements of an all-Ireland economy, agriculture and electricity, but GB would be free to chart its own course. That would free GB to have a free trade agreement with the EU, but would create a border down the Irish Sea. All of that could be achieved by amending the backstop in the Brexit withdrawal agreement to apply only to NI. The separate political declaration would be amended to say that a “Canada+” trade deal would be negotiated for GB. The government would be wary of calling the new mechanism a backstop, because it regards the current backstop as anti-democratic. Downing St confirmed that a backstop in any form is unacceptable to the PM, but he told MPs last week that he is willing to recognise this, at least:

Agrifood is increasingly managed on a common basis across the island of Ireland.

There is potentially a big problem with this plan. The DUP would oppose anything that would create a new regulatory border between GB and NI. In his blog, Watt quotes one source explaining why a version of this proposal might be acceptable to the unionists. This morning Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, spoke to Sky News before flying to London. She said she would be speaking to Johnson later. Asked about the suggestions that Johnson was planning a NI-only backstop, she claimed this was “very wide of the mark.” Perhaps she is right, but it did sound a little as if she was not 100% convinced, and as if she was seeking to lay down a marker to the PM. She told Sky News:

There’s been a lot of speculation about that. What we’re focused on is about getting a deal that works for the whole of the UK, one that works for NI, one that does not have NI hived off into a different customs union than the rest of the UK, breaking up the single market of the UK. That would be unheard-of. To think that any UK PM would be involved in that sort of thing would just be an anathema. Jeremy Corbyn has said that in the past. Our own PM has said that. So I think all of this speculation is very wide of the mark.

When it was put to her that some people might think she was being naive, and that Johnson was more committed to delivering Brexit than to sticking with the DUP, she replied:

What people are talking about is not delivering Brexit. What people are talking about is the break-up of the UK. That is not something that any PM of the UK is going to in any conscience go along with.

A Northern Ireland-only backstop?
Daniel Boffey, Groan, Sep 10 2019

Photo: Dan Kitwood

After three years of debate and negotiation there is little new under the sun when it comes to Brexit. But it is rumoured in Westminster, and hoped in Brussels, that Boris Johnson is to revert to a NI-only backstop as he seeks to move past the Brexit impasse and avoid breaking his word and extending the UK’s membership beyond Oct 31.
What is an NI-only backstop? The British government’s version of Brexit involves the UK leaving the single market and customs union, requiring the return of a range of checks on goods crossing the border between NI and the Republic of Ireland. The “backstop” is intended as a placeholder to ensure such checks do not have to be imposed in the transition period between a withdrawal agreement being ratified and a future all-solving relationship being negotiated.
What is the Brexit ‘backstop’? The backstop in the current withdrawal agreement would temporarily keep Northern Ireland in the single market, meaning some checks on goods entering Northern Ireland from Britain. But the whole of the UK would stay in a shared customs territory with the EU. This insurance arrangement was negotiated by Theresa May because the then-PM was of the opinion that no British PM could countenance agreeing to the EU’s first proposal, a backstop that involved only NI staying in the EU’s customs territory. That would involve a customs border being drawn in the Irish Sea. May described it as a threat to the constitutional integrity of the UK.
Why has the NI-only backstop re-emerged as a possible solution? Boris Johnson has been thwarted from holding a general election or taking the country out of the EU without a deal on Oct 31. But he has also said he would rather “die in a ditch” than ask the EU for an extension to the UK’s membership. Logic would suggest his only option now would be to agree a tweaked deal with the EU and bring it back to parliament in October. He has opened the current talks by proposing an all-Ireland agrifood zone, which is one part of a NI-only backstop. The suggestion is that he will seek to quietly build on that with further NI-only arrangements. Johnson’s EU envoy David Frost has already sought to discuss governance with the EU of any NI-only arrangements.
Will the EU agree? Given an NI-only backstop was an EU proposal in the first place, the U-turn would be warmly welcomed, although attempts to give the NI assembly a veto on its continuation would not be acceptable.
Is it likely to be the solution? It is difficult to see where Johnson finds a majority in parliament. Labour, the DUP and a large number of Conservative backbenchers have opposed the NI-only backstop in the past. An NI-only arrangement allows the UK to pursue its own trade policy, unlike the backstop in the withdrawal agreement. It could be the landing zone after a general election for a newly-returned Johnson administration if the parliamentary arithmetic has changed.

EU puts Ireland’s commissioner’ in charge of negotiating Brexit
Jon Stone, Independent, Sep 10 2019

Ireland’s EU commissioner, an arch-critic of Brexit and Boris Johnson, is to be put in charge of negotiating trade deals for the bloc, Brussels has announced. The appointment of Phil Hogan to the role of EU trade commissioner for the next five years will see him go up against the UK’s negotiators in talks, if the Brexit process gets that far. Last month he accused “unelected” PM Boris Johnson of putting “the best interests of the Tory party ahead of the best interests of the UK.” In June last year he said the tide was going out on the “high priests of Brexit,” suggesting the British public were finally seeing through the “deception and lies” of Michael Gove and Nigel Farage, whom he named. Mr Hogan was confirmed as being given the Trade portfolio by incoming Commission president Ursula von Der Leyen on Tuesday afternoon at a press conference in Brussels, where she unveiled her new cabinet. The whole Commission will have to be confirmed by the European Parliament following a series of hearings. EU sources told Irish public broadcaster RTE:

This is one of the most important economic portfolios in the next commission, coming at a very important time for the EU and Ireland.

The bloc has said it will not open trade negotiations with the UK until the issues in the withdrawal agreement, including the Irish border and divorce bill payments, are dealt with to its satisfaction. Mr Hogan, who was agriculture commissioner in Jean-Claude Juncker’s administration, will work closely with Sabine Weyand, the former deputy of Michel Barnier who is known in Brussels as the brains behind the withdrawal agreement. She was promoted to director general at the Commission’s trade department earlier this year. Ireland’s EU commissioner gave a taste of his views about a future UK-EU trade agreement in a speech in April. Noting the difficulties of negotiating deal with Pindostan, the likely impact on the UK balance of payments, and the difficulty of negotiating agreements with the Commonwealth and rolling over old EU trade deals, he warned:

Global Britain will mean a return to medium-sized nation status for the UK. Yes, it will regain the sovereignty to seek and strike agreements where it wants, but with reduced bargaining power, reduced security of its markets and supply chains, and a friction and cost added to each trade shipment to the EU, its biggest trade partner. Stepping into Global Britain is stepping into a difficult world. And there will be a huge gap between hope and experience.

Johnson prorogues Parliament
Robert Stevens, WSWS, Sep 10 2019

PM Boris Johnson prorogued Parliament Monday evening after opposition MPs voted for a second time against his attempt to force a general election before the current Brexit deadline of Oct 31. Although Johnson won the vote by 293 to 46, a motion to hold a general election requires the support of two-thirds of all the more than 600 MPs, and as opposition MPs abstained, the prime minister was far short of that. Johnson’s anti-democratic suspension of Parliament was carried out to prevent opposition MPs from taking control of Parliament’s order paper over the next five weeks and derailing his plans to withdraw the UK from the EU without a deal if necessary. The vote to oppose an early election took place after a Bill put forward by Labour Blairite MP Hilary Benn and designed to prevent Johnson imposing a no-deal Brexit received royal assent to become an act of law. It compels Johnson to request from the EU an extension to the Brexit deadline until Jan 2020 if there is no deal agreed by Oct 19. The bill was rushed through both Houses of Parliament last week, after cross-party MPs deemed it the best way to stymie Johnson’s plans. Despite being unable to prevent Benn’s Bill passing, the government insists that it will not request an extension from the EU beyond Oct 31. At a press conference last week at a police training college, Johnson stated that he would rather “die in a ditch” than agree an extension. As this would mean the executive were refusing to accept an act of law, speculation mounted over the weekend that this could result in legal action taken against Johnson by MPs. According to pro-Brexit Tory MP Nigel Evans, the government is war-gaming “about 20” different ways it can get around having to seek an extension. One option being considered was for Johnson to write to the EU to formally seek a Brexit extension and then also send another letter stating that the UK does not want an extension. Another was to exploit the sentiments of one of the EU members not in favour of granting the UK an extension. France is reportedly poised to reject an extension, with foreign minister Le Drian stating at the weekend:

We are not going to do this every three months.

Other plans being considered were Johnson calling a vote of confidence in his own government, a provision usually reserved for the leader of the main opposition party under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, or for Johnson to resign, with another figure making the request in his place as a temporary prime minister. Johnson spent part of Monday in Dublin in talks with Leo Varadkar, who declared, as he stood beside Johnson:

No backstop is no deal and so far, the British government has come up with no realistic plans to replace the backstop.

In response, Johnson was forced to say:

A no-deal Brexit would be a failure of statecraft for which we would all be responsible.

Johnson, under orders from the Tories’ hard Brexit wing, opposes a backstop being part of a deal. A joint statement released after his meeting with Varadkar could only state diplomatically there was “common ground” but “significant gaps remain.” Monday also saw the resignation of Parliament’s Speaker, the pro-Remain Tory John Bercow. The Financial Times noted:

During the past year, the Speaker has granted several emergency debates to pro-Remain MPs that have broken with convention to allow backbenchers to take control of the Commons and pass legislation to avoid a no-deal Brexit. This resulted in the Conservative party announcing they would stand a candidate against him at the next election, which may have played a role in his decision to retire.

It emerged that his local Conservative association, dominated by Brexiteers, planned to deselect him as their MP. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn could only complain about Johnson’s prorogation:

I think it is disgraceful. Parliament should be sitting. Parliament should be holding the government to account. And the prime minister appears to want to run away from questions.

Bercow stated that if MPs voted to oppose an early general election he would remain in place until Oct 31, the day that the UK is set to leave the EU. Giving a clear indication that he would oppose Johnson’s plans to the last, he said in his time as Speaker:

To deploy a perhaps dangerous phrase, I have also sought to be the backbencher’s backstop. I shall remain in place until the end of October, as that date will fall shortly after the votes on the Queen’s speech expected on Oct 21-22. The week or so after that may be quite lively and it would be best to have an experienced figure in the chair for that short period.

Bercow allowed two pro-Remain emergency “humble address” motions to be debated and voted on by MPs last night. The first was from Dominic Grieve, the former Tory attorney-general who was thrown out of the Conservative party last week by Johnson after he backed Benn’s Bill, along with another 20 Tory rebels. MPs voted by 311 to 302 in favour of Grieve’s request that the government publish all the documents related to “Operation Yellowhammer,” the planning documents for a no-deal outcome, and the private communications between Downing Street advisers on the decision to prorogue Parliament. The government said a revised version of Yellowhammer will be released, but it is understood to be against publishing the prorogation documents. Johnson was able to go forward with the prorogation of Parliament with opposition MPs registering pro forma protests, despite much hot air the previous week from MPs threatening to occupy the chamber to prevent prorogation. The Remain camp will be secretly pleased that Parliament is suspended, so they can try and formulate an effective counter-attack against Johnson. The other motion Bercow allowed was from Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn:

That this house welcomes the completion of all parliamentary stages of the EU (withdrawal) (No 6) bill and has considered the matter of the importance of the rule of law and ministers obligation to comply with the law.

So pro-forma was Corbyn’s move that it was put through on the nod, without even a vote being called. It was left to the Financial Times to give the Remain wing their marching orders. In an editorial Sunday, the City of London’s newspaper declared:

A zombie government means an election must be held. Boris Johnson’s Conservative government is in meltdown. It has thrown away its majority and cannot govern. (We face the) hideous choice between a likely no-deal Brexit under Mr Johnson’s Conservatives, or the revolutionary socialist project of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour. We should use the prorogation period to nail down an agreement on a caretaker government headed by a more trustworthy and less divisive figure than Mr Corbyn, and on strategies for the following weeks and for an election, including opposing Johnson ignoring the law to block a no-deal, resigning or a no-confidence vote in itself that Johnson’s government may resort to.

our billy’s done so much better at school since we got him chipped …

Royal Society calls for inquiry into new wave of brain implants
Ian Sample, Groan, Sep 10 2019

Society must prepare for a technological revolution in which brain implants allow people to communicate by telepathy, download new skills, and brag about their holidays in “neural postcards”, leading scientists say. While such far-fetched applications remain fiction for now, research into brain implants and other neural devices is advancing so fast that the Royal Society has called for a “national investigation” into the technology. Tim Constandinou, director of the next generation neural interfaces lab at Imperial College London, and co-chair of a new Royal Society report called iHuman, said:

In 10 years’ time this is probably going to touch millions of people. These technologies are not possible today, but we are heading in that direction.

The report foresees a “neural revolution” driven by electronic implants that communicate directly with the brain and other parts of the nervous system. By 2040, the scientists anticipate that implants will help the paralysed to walk, with other devices alleviating the symptoms of neurodegenerative diseases and treatment-resistant depression. The new wave of devices will go beyond existing products such as cochlear implant hearing aids and deep brain stimulators for people with Parkinson’s disease, with gadgets that help the healthy. In research labs, scientists are working on ways for people to type with their brains, and share thoughts by connecting their minds. Other teams are developing helmets and headbands to speed up learning and improve memory. the report states:

People could become telepathic to some degree, able to converse not only without speaking but without words, through access to each other’s thoughts at a conceptual level. This could enable unprecedented collaboration with colleagues and deeper conversations with friends.

But with such new powers come new risks, the report adds. Expensive brain-boosting devices may become luxury items in richer nations, leaving poorer countries behind. And with devices plugged directly into the brain, people’s most intimate data could be used against them. the report says:

Access to people’s thoughts, moods and motivations could lead to abuse of human rights. Some companies might expect their employees to wear devices that reveal their inner feelings.

The report calls for the public to be consulted “early and often” about the ethical issues that neural implants throw up, and proposes a regulatory body akin to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to police how new devices are used. Sarah Chan, a co-author on the report at Edinburgh University, said:

As our experience with social media has shown, we do need to think ahead about who will control this data and what it might be used for, to guard against possible harmful uses. If recent experience has shown us anything, it’s that individual consent and opting in or out is not enough to protect either individuals or society more widely.

But Constandinou warned against overregulation that could cripple new technologies before they leave the lab, saying:

We need safeguards to ensure things are not misused, but we shouldn’t shoot ourselves in the foot. This technology could massively improve the quality of life for millions of people.