Speaking at the Congress of the Party of European Socialists in Portugal, the Labour leader hit out at the continent’s “political establishment” and warned EU leaders that a “business as usual approach” could end up fueling the far-right.
“If the European political establishment carries on with business as usual, the fake populists of the far right will fill the vacuum,” he said.
He savaged EU support for austerity that had caused “serious hardship” across the continent.
“As socialists and trade unionists, we will work together to help build a real social Europe: a people’s Europe, a socialist Europe, that will strengthen solidarity across borders, resist the race to the bottom in rights and protections and work together to extend them for all workers, consumers and our environment.
“We have to recognise that EU support for austerity and failed neoliberal policies have caused serious hardship for working people across Europe, damaged the credibility of European social democratic parties, and played a significant role in the vote for Brexit.
“European socialists have to fight for a different kind of Europe.”
Donald Trump hailed Boris Johnson as a future prime minister, accused the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, of doing “a bad job” on terrorism
|Dan Sabbagh, The Guardian|AIWA! NO!|Donald Trump hailed Boris Johnson as a future prime minister, accused the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, of doing “a bad job” on terrorism and said there had been too much immigration in Europe in an incendiary interview that raised questions about the decision to invite him to Britain.
Trump described Johnson as “a very talented guy” for whom he had “a lot of respect”. He claimed he was not trying to pit Johnson against his host, but added: “I am just saying I think he would be a great prime minister. I think he’s got what it takes.”
The president – who has said he would like to see Johnson during his UK trip– added that Johnson “obviously likes me, and says very good things about me. I was very saddened to see he was leaving government and I hope he goes back in at some point. I think he is a great representative for your country.”
Last month, a leaked recording of Johnson revealed that the former foreign secretary was “increasingly admiring of Donald Trump”. The Conservative MP said that Trump would negotiate Brexit “bloody hard”, adding: “There’d be all sorts of breakdowns, all sorts of chaos. Everyone would think he’d gone mad. But actually you might get somewhere. It’s a very, very good thought.”
According to senior figures at Tory HQ, Sir Lynton Crosby is behind plans to mount a nationwide campaign against May’s Chequers agreement on Brexit as the precursor to a leadership challenge from the former foreign secretary.
Australian-born Crosby masterminded the Tories shock general election win in 2015, but “is said to be motivated by “revenge” after No 10 blamed the strategist for last year’s botched General Election”, reports the Mail on Sunday.
MPs plan to publish an alternative to May’s plan before the Tory party conference at the end of the month with the backing of both Johnson and David Davis, who resigned as Brexit secretary over Chequers and yesterday said he would vote against the deal in the Commons.
The Sunday Times has revealed that May’s aides have had talks with civil servants about whether to call a general election if her Brexit deal is voted down by MPs. They have also discussed whether she should announce that she will stand down in the year after Brexit.
But it is the revelation that the Tories’ top election strategist is trying to destroy May’s flagship policy that “will ignite a firestorm in Westminster” says the paper.
Crosby’s powerful campaign company CTF Partners is said to be in close contact with the European Research Group (ERG) of Brexit hardliners run by Jacob Rees-Mogg to coordinate with Change Britain, a group set up to argue for a hard Brexit, and turn it into a guerilla campaign against the Chequers deal.
The campaign would then double as a platform for Johnson – whose 2008 London mayoral victory was also masterminded by Crosby – to make a rival leadership bid.
For his part, Johnson, who has seen his popularity soar among Tory grassroots members resigning in protest at the prime minister’s proposal for Brexit, has denied plotting with Crosby to derail negotiations with Brussels and seize Downing Street.
|AIWA! NO!|BREITBART|Following some of the worst riots seen in Paris in decades, the vast majority of French people still support the goals of the Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests).
A survey of 1,016 people conducted by the polling firm Harris has revealed that even after the riots that saw cars and buildings burned on the Champs-Élysées, 72 per cent of respondents said they still support the movement, broadcaster RTL reports.
The figures are not dissimilar from polls taken in the aftermath of the first protests on November 17th which saw nowhere near the same levels of violence but did see one death from a car speeding into a crowd of protestors.
The polling firm also found that an overwhelming majority of French, 85 per cent, were against the use of violence during the protests with only 15 per cent finding violence justifiable.
The violence over the weekend has largely overshadowed the original purpose of the protests, which were to pressure French President Emmanuel Macron to rethink a tax on fuel as part of his green agenda.
Some, such as populist former MP Marion Maréchal (formerly Marion Le Pen), have claimed that the violence has been due to far-left extremists infiltrating the movement and using it as an excuse to smash property and clash with police.
The theory of Ms Maréchal seemed to gain credibility on Saturday as the Arc de Triomphe was seen to be covered in far-left extremist graffiti including the phrase, “the ultra-right will lose!”
The core of the movement, according to French writer Renaud Camus, is an uprising of regular people who are protesting the globalist elites, who he refers to as the “Davocracy.”
In an interview with Breitbart London, he said the core of the movement was about “lack of respect, general exchangeability, being treated by managerial politics like an object, a simple product. A product, a producer, and a consumer all at once, a thing, a number, not a human being.”
It’s signed and sealed, but can Theresa May’s Brexit divorce deal be delivered? https://youtu.be/aQyJQTpL1_I Yesterday’s EU Council summit approved the withdrawal agreement and political declaration, and the Prime Minister will return to the Commons this afternoon to provide an update. Before that, cabinet members will get their own briefing on how to sell the deal in media appearances. They have just over two weeks, as it would appear we now have a date for the big vote – Wednesday 12th December.
EU leaders have sent a clear message for Britain: this is the only deal you’re going to get. This is “the best possible deal”, Jean-Claude Juncker said. “I’m never changing my mind… If the House would say no, we would have no deal.” Of course, they would say that – they’re trying to help May sell it to MPs. Despite their best efforts, termed Project Fear 2.0 by Brexiteers, parliament still looks resolutely unconvinced. Even the most prudent list puts the number of Tory rebels at 88, while others have estimated 94.
Over the weekend, the likelihood of the deal passing dropped further. Arlene Foster confirmed to Andrew Marr that the DUP would under no circumstances be voting for it, while Lisa Nandy described voting in favour as “inconceivable”. The backbench Labour MP, who had been open to supporting the deal until recently, said the problem was not the withdrawal agreement but the political declaration, reminding us that this divorce deal is just the beginning – the toughest negotiations are about the UK and EU’s future dealings. Gareth Snell, another Labour MP who represents a Leave seat and could’ve been wooed by the government, writes today for LabourList with his thoughts on the deal. “I can’t support a deal that fails to meet the expectations of the referendum, and I’m confident it will be voted down,” Snell writes. But he acknowledges that what happens next is a mystery, so “MPs from all sides of the debate are taking a huge gamble” by rejecting it.Keir Starmer has come out in favour of a possible alternative: extending the Article 50 deadline. The Shadow Brexit Secretary reckons the government and EU, contrary to their claims, would allow the exit date to be pushed back in order to renegotiate.
This is how Labour plans to avoid both May’s deal and no deal.
Of course, extension is the precise opposite of what is wanted by BOBs (that’s people who are Bored of Brexit, as popularised by Jeremy Hunton on Andrew Marr Show yesterday).
Concluding that the British public want politicians to “get on with it” is hardly a wild observation, so some might question the political savviness of Labour’s support for prolonging the process.These issues and others could come to a head on TV.
Following reports May would like to challenge Jeremy Corbyn to a debate, the Labour leader said he would “relish” the opportunity.
We can only laugh when remembering that the PM turned down TV debates last year, saying Corbyn “ought to be paying a little more attention to thinking about Brexit negotiations”.Sienna @siennamarla
“We are said to be isolated, but I say that which I know when I say that we have but to hold out our hands and our isolation will terminate, and we shall receive welcome into several groups of other Powers. . . .
In the modern system of European politics we could at any moment, I believe, make such alliances as we chose. . . . Our isolation is not an isolation of weakness, or of contempt for ourselves: it is deliberately chosen; the freedom to act as we choose in any circumstances that may arise.”
As late as 1905 Great Britain stood practically alone in the world. British isolation was rather enforced than voluntary, and as powerful hostile coalitions directed against this country were always possible, and sometimes actually threatening, there was nothing splendid about this isolation, notwithstanding Lord Goschen’s celebrated phrase.
Foreign relations were no longer limited to the European continent. After 1885, foreign ministers were interested, not only in questions concerning dynasties and treaties, but in colonial boundaries, spheres of influence, rights of possession, trade routes and markets, tariffs and tariff treaties.
In the great scheme of things and majority of cases; negotiation, agreement, arbitration, and compromise were substituted for wars.
In many important crises the powers acted together in common accord, in order to promote peace and to avoid war.
|AIWA! NO!|Above all else, we must welcome any positive news coming from Yemen. A potential humanitarian tragedy, greater than the one that the Yemenis have been experiencing for many years, must be avoided. The Yemenis have suffered enough since 2011, when the Muslim Brotherhood thought that it could highjack the popular uprising against the existing regime and use it to seize power.
The Brotherhood failed to take two things into consideration. The first was the fact that the regime of former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was assassinated by the Houthis about a year ago, was not an easy morsel to swallow, and the second was that the Houthis and behind them Iran were waiting in the wings for the right opportunity to lay their claws on Sana’a. And that’s exactly what happened on September 21, 2014.
Today, the international community, led by the United States and Britain, is pressing for a near truce in Hodeidah. Then, we have the Houthis announcing that they will stop firing rockets and sending drones “towards Saudi Arabia and the UAE.”
Can we therefore say we have the right conditions for a political solution in Yemen?
Logic and recent experience say that halting the attack on the strategic port of Hodeidah cannot be compared to halting the missile attacks on Saudi Arabia. Let’s not even talk about comparing it to halting missile attacks on the UAE because it is doubtful that these missiles can reach that far in the first place.
What is certain is that there is a need for the Houthis to come to their senses. There is also a need to restructure the camp of the legitimate government so that it can be up to the importance of the event and able to deal with any political solution that may be submitted by the UN Secretary-General’s envoy for Yemen, Martin Griffiths, who unfortunately does not seem to know much about Yemen or about the ambitions of the Houthis and of those who hide behind them.
Experience has shown that it is hopeless to bet on the Houthis coming to their senses. All one has to do to come to that conclusion is examine the speeches given by their leader, Abdelmalik al-Houthi, since the takeover of Sana’a. They contain nothing substantial and are just manoeuvres to buy time. The Houthis have nothing to offer Yemenis besides illusions, empty slogans and pompous rhetoric that cannot buy medicine, feed the hungry or build a school or a hospital. The frightening thing is that the Houthis are completely unconcerned with the precarious situation of the average Yemeni citizen.
For all practical purposes, however, there is no escaping from including the Houthis in any political process aimed at reaching some sort of solution at some stage. But the Houthis’ actions suggest they want to impose a formula that will eventually lead to the establishment of a state of their own with Sana’a as its capital.
How can we possibly allow the people of Sana’a and their centuries-old cultural heritage to fall to the mercy of marauding cave dwellers that know only how to chant “Death to America, Death to Israel, Damn the Jews, Victory for Islam”?
The UN envoy for Yemen will be making a major mistake if he continues to believe that a political solution can be found with the existing balance of power. By saying this, we’re not suggesting resuming fighting in Hodeidah; on the contrary, it is an attempt to avoid further fighting. At the end of the day, if the Houthis are allowed to stay in Hodeidah, it will be the shortest way to reach a political impasse.
To put it differently, if the negotiations scheduled to take place in Stockholm are limited to the Houthis and the “legitimate” government, there will be no positive results. It is imperative that the vicious circle in Yemen be broken. This can only be achieved by removing the Houthis from Hodeidah and by restructuring the “legitimacy” camp by expanding its base. It does not make sense not to include all the forces involved in confronting the Houthis in the “legitimacy” camp.
If these two conditions are not met, the Houthis will continue to exercise their favourite hobby: buying time in order to create new conditions on the ground. It was easy for them, for example, to assassinate Saleh because they really don’t care about the lives and future of Yemeni youth. For them, a young Yemeni is just a martyrdom project. He doesn’t need to go to school or university. All he needs is to learn how to chant hollow slogans and fight for the victory of Iran’s expansionist project in the region.
Is this what the UN envoy and the United States and Britain behind him really want to happen in Yemen?
Perhaps he really wants to find a balanced political solution that will revive hope in Yemen. Again, the point is not to eliminate the Houthis. In fact, no one can eliminate anyone in Yemen. What is more desirable than ever is finding a way to include the largest number of political forces in the north, south and centre in any national dialogue or negotiations for a political solution.
The only constant in Yemen is that there can be no return to the old formula — that of one Yemen controlled by Sana’a, or the centre as it was called. The old Yemen we’re familiar with is now gone. Perhaps the right formula for a new Yemen is that of a federation or confederation. But there is no hope of reaching such a formula if the vicious circle in not broken.