#I wish Britain could vote again and after today come to a different result

[newstfionline]

Friday, November 6, 2020

Biden sees path to 270; Trump attacks election integrity (AP) With his pathway to re-election appearing to shrink, President Trump on Thursday advanced unsupported accusations of voter fraud to falsely argue that his rival was trying to seize power. “This is a case when they are trying to steal an election, they are trying to rig an election,” Trump said from the podium of the White House briefing room. The president’s remarks deepened a sense of anxiety in the U.S. as Americans enter their third full day after the election without knowing who would serve as president for the next four years. Neither candidate has reached the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the White House. But Biden eclipsed Trump in Wisconsin and Michigan, two crucial Midwestern battleground states, and was inching closer to overtaking the president in Pennsylvania and Georgia, where votes were still be counted. It was unclear when a national winner would be determined after a long, bitter campaign dominated by the coronavirus and its effects on Americans and the national economy.

Win or Lose, Trump Will Remain a Powerful and Disruptive Force (NYT) If President Trump loses his bid for re-election, as looked increasingly likely on Wednesday, it would be the first defeat of an incumbent president in 28 years. But one thing seemed certain: Win or lose, he will not go quietly away. At the very least, he has 76 days left in office to use his power as he sees fit and to seek revenge on some of his perceived adversaries. Angry at a defeat, he may fire or sideline a variety of senior officials who failed to carry out his wishes as he saw it. And if he is forced to vacate the White House on Jan. 20, Mr. Trump is likely to prove more resilient than expected and almost surely will remain a powerful and disruptive force in American life. He received at least 68 million votes, or five million more than he did in 2016, and commanded about 48 percent of the popular vote, meaning he retained the support of nearly half of the public despite four years of scandal, setbacks, impeachment and the brutal coronavirus outbreak that has killed more than 233,000 Americans. That gives him a power base to play a role that other defeated one-term presidents like Jimmy Carter and George Bush have not played. Even if his own days as a candidate are over, his 88-million-strong Twitter following gives him a bullhorn to be an influential voice on the right.

‘The whole world waits’ with unease as drawn-out, contested election batters America’s global image (Washington Post) As the world reckoned with another day of uncertainty over the result of the U.S. presidential election, Trump’s premature victory claim, unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud and the threat of legal challenges continued to overshadow the drawn-out vote count, from which no clear winner has emerged. The indecision was met with deep unease around the globe over what lies ahead for the U.S. political process—and more than a little glee from America’s traditional adversaries. In Canada, lawmakers have been relatively silent on the aftermath of the vote, but election coverage continued to dominate the country’s largest newspapers, to the point that they nearly resembled U.S. dailies. The Toronto Star described a “nagging, palpable sense of dread” that no matter who prevails, Canada has never felt “so far apart” from its southern neighbor. “America has represented optimism, looking forward and ideas,” said Tatsuhiko Yoshizaki, chief economist at the Sojitz Research Institute in Tokyo. “And yet, over the past four years, we have come to see the dark side in the United States.” The same sentiment was echoed in Europe on Thursday, where Germany’s left-leaning Der Spiegel newsweekly compared Trump to a “late Roman emperor” who has “set a historic standard for voter contempt.” In Britain, some commentators responded with disgust—with the left-leaning Daily Mirror calling Trump “a liar and a cheat until the bitter end”—while other papers turned to humor, especially over the slow pace of the vote count. The front page of the Metro newspaper read: “Make America Wait Again.” In China, a number of publications used the election to highlight shortcomings of the American system. Still, China’s vice foreign minister, Le Yucheng, voiced hopes on Thursday about repairing bilateral relations after the election. “I hope the new U.S. administration will meet China halfway,” he said, according to CNBC.

US sets record for cases amid election battle (AP) New confirmed cases of the coronavirus in the U.S. have climbed to an all-time high of more than 86,000 per day on average, in a glimpse of the worsening crisis that lies ahead for the winner of the presidential election. Cases and hospitalizations are setting records all around the country just as the holidays and winter approach, demonstrating the challenge that either President Donald Trump or former Vice President Joe Biden will face in the coming months. The total U.S. death toll is already more than 232,000, and total confirmed U.S. cases have surpassed 9 million. Those are the highest totals in the world, and new infections are increasing in nearly every state.

Riot declared in Portland as protesters smash windows (AP) A riot was declared in Portland, Oregon, and protesters took to the streets in Seattle on Wednesday as people demanded that every vote in Tuesday’s election be counted. Hundreds were protesting in both cities against President Donald Trump’s court challenges to stop the vote count in battleground states. The Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office at about 7 p.m. declared a riot after protesters were seen smashing windows at businesses. In the interest of public safety, Gov. Kate Brown activated the use of the state National Guard to help local law enforcement manage the unrest, according to the sheriff’s office. Portland has been roiled by five months of near-nightly racial injustice protests since the police killing of George Floyd.

Tired of blue state life, rural Oregon voters eye new border (AFP) As a hotly contested election highlights the United States’s deep divisions, rural voters in liberal blue-state Oregon have approved a radical solution—splitting off to join neighboring deep-red conservative Idaho. Two conservative counties voted in favor of a non-binding measure to “Move Oregon’s Borders” during Tuesday’s polls, which also saw their northwestern US state predictably vote for Joe Biden in the race for president. “In the United States, the differences between liberal and conservative... there’s hatred there,” said chief petitioner Mike McCarter, of the votes in Union and Jefferson counties. “Populated urban areas are controlling the mass of everybody,” the 73-year-old retired gun club manager told AFP. Oregon—whose politics are dominated by the liberal city of Portland—has not voted Republican in a presidential contest since 1984, while landlocked Idaho to the east last chose a Democrat in 1964. But the high desert and mountainous swathes of eastern Oregon—where resource-intensive industries such as timber, ranching and mining prevail—are far more conservative than the environment-minded coastal stretches of the state. McCarthy said his movement’s goals rings true for outnumbered rural conservatives across a nation in which most states apportion their electoral college votes—to choose the president—on an all-or-nothing basis. “It’s a definite clash between blue and red,” he said. “Indiana and Illinois have got the same issue because Chicago controls all Illinois. In New York (state), New York City controls all New York. There’s a constant rub going back-and forth on life values between urban and rural.”

Eta brings heavy rains, deadly mudslides to Honduras (AP) Eta moved into Honduras on Wednesday as a weakened tropical depression but still bringing the heavy rains that have drenched and caused deadly landslides in the country’s east and in northern Nicaragua. The storm no longer carried the winds of the Category 4 hurricane that battered Nicaragua’s coast Tuesday, but it was moving so slowly and dumping so much rain that much of Central America was on high alert. Eta had sustained winds of 35 mph (55 kph) and was moving west-northwest at 7 mph (11 kph) Wednesday night. It was 115 miles (185 kilometers) south-southeast of La Ceiba. The long-term forecast shows Eta taking a turn over Central America and then reforming as a tropical storm in the Caribbean—possibly reaching Cuba on Sunday and southern Florida on Monday.

Arce’s opponents go on strike in Bolivia (Foreign Policy) Conservative opponents of Bolivian President-elect Luis Arce will begin a two-day strike today in the department of Santa Cruz, home to Bolivia’s largest city, in order to voice their opposition to the results of October’s presidential election. Governor Ruben Costas has asked Bolivia’s electoral tribunal to audit the result, but the tribunal rejected the request, citing the election’s certification by outside groups such as the Organization of American States (OAS). Arce is set to be inaugurated as president on Sunday.

Pix (Rest of World) Brazil’s Central Bank will launch a national instant payment system called Pix, which will be free to use by its citizens and mandatory for major banks to implement. It’s required for the 34 banks with 500,000 clients or more to roll out, and that group serves 90 percent of the 175.4 million Brazilians with bank accounts. As a result, this change could revolutionize digital payments in the country. Right now, fast money transfers cost 10 Brazilian reais in fees, or about $2. Pix will be effectively free for consumers: the Central Bank charges banks 1 Brazilian centavo, or $0.0018, for every 10 transactions. The five largest banks in Brazil make $440 million a year from same-day money transfer fees. The free price point of Pix will likely undercut their offerings.

In Spain, coronavirus puts the poor at the back of the line MADRID (AP)—Erika Oliva spends at least three hours a week standing in line at a soup kitchen. She spends a couple more at the social worker’s office with her 8-year-old son, who has autism. She waits on the phone to the health center or when she wants to check if her application for a basic income program will get her the promised 1,015 euros ($1,188). So far, it hasn’t. “They are always asking for more papers but we still haven’t seen a euro. Everything seems to be closed because of the pandemic. Or you are told to go online,” said Oliva. She managed to apply online, but others in her situation don’t know how to use a computer or simply don’t have one. “Poor people queue. It’s what we know how to do best,” Oliva said. Lower income families around the world have often suffered most from the pandemic for several reasons: their jobs might expose them more to the virus and their savings are typically lower. In Spain, their situation has been worse than in much of Europe due to the big role of hard-hit industries like tourism and weaker social welfare benefits. “The pandemic is extending and intensifying poverty in a country that already had serious inequality problems,” said Carlos Susías, president of the European Anti-Poverty Network, which encompasses dozens of non-profits. He says insufficient welfare spending, too much red tape, lack of access to technology and a resurgence of the pandemic are likely to widen what is already one of the developed world’s biggest gaps between rich and poor.

Pope Francis: A Day Without Prayer Is ‘Bothersome,’ ‘Tedious’ (Breitbart) Pope Francis insisted Wednesday on the centrality of prayer in a Christian’s life, declaring that prayer has a way of turning all things to good. Prayer “possesses primacy: it is the first desire of the day, something that is practised at dawn, before the world awakens,” the pope proposed in his weekly general audience in the Vatican. “It restores a soul to that which otherwise would be without breath.” “A day lived without prayer risks being transformed into a bothersome or tedious experience” where “all that happens to us could turn into a badly endured and blind fate.” Through prayer, the many occurrences of every day—both good and bad—take on new meaning, the pontiff suggested. “Prayer is primarily listening and encountering God,” he said. “The problems of everyday life, then, do not become obstacles, but appeals from God Himself to listen to and encounter those who are in front of us.” “Consistent prayer produces progressive transformation, makes us strong in times of tribulation, gives us the grace to be supported by Him who loves us and always protects us,” he said.

Greece orders nationwide lockdown to curb COVID surge (Reuters) Greece ordered a nationwide lockdown on Thursday for three weeks to help contain a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. Under the new countrywide restrictions to take effect from Saturday, retail businesses will be shut with the exception of supermarkets and pharmacies. Civilians will need a time-slot permit to venture outdoors. Primary schools will stay open, but high schools will shut.

Debt trap? (Nikkei Asian Review) China has lent large amounts of money to many developing countries, and critics contend—though China disputes—that this is in pursuit of “debt-trap diplomacy,” where a powerful country offers money to a less powerful one, and when the less powerful one defaults, the powerful country will take important resources like ports, natural resources, or infrastructure. China’s loans typically have interest rates of 3 percent or more, compared to International Monetary Fund and World Bank loans where the interest is about 1 percent. Critics point to the China-Sri Lanka relationship—where Sri Lanka signed a 99-year lease on the port of Hambantota in 2017—as a key example, and there are others. Regardless of the broader motivations, lots of African nations are in the hole to China, and the pandemic has exacerbated default risks. Zambia—home to voluminous copper reserves—is a particularly interesting case, as the country owes $12 billion in total, of which $3.4 billion, or 29 percent of its external debt, is to China, up 8 percentage points from four years ago.

China blocks travellers from virus-hit Britain, Belgium, Philippines (Reuters) Mainland China has barred entry to non-Chinese visitors from Britain, Belgium and the Philippines and demanded travellers from the United States, France and Germany present results of additional health tests, as coronavirus cases rise around the world. China has temporarily suspended entry of non-Chinese nationals travelling from the United Kingdom even if they hold valid visas and residence permits, the Chinese embassy in Britain said, in some of the most stringent border restrictions imposed by any country in response to the pandemic. Starting Nov. 6, all passengers from the United States, France, Germany and Thailand bound for mainland China must take both a nucleic acid test and a blood test for antibodies against the coronavirus. The tests must be done no more than 48 hours before boarding.

Japan’s expensive oranges (CNN) How many mandarin oranges can you buy with one million yen—or roughly $9,600? For one fruit-loving buyer at an auction this week in Japan, the answer is just 100. A single, 20-kilogram crate of 100 Japanese mandarins (also called mikan) hit the auction block on Thursday at Tokyo’s central wholesale Ota Market. It was the year’s first auction of satsuma mandarin oranges, a famous citrus species from Ehime prefecture, on the island of Shikoku in southern Japan. Nishiuwa is one of Ehime’s mikan-producing regions and its semi-seedless citrus species of oranges is known for its good balance of rich and sweet flavors, its easy-to-peel thin skin as well as its melt-in-the-mouth texture. It wasn’t the first time the sweet mandarins fetched such a staggering price in an auction—the highest bidding price last year was also in the million range.

West Bank village razed (Foreign Policy) Israeli forces have demolished a Palestinian village in the West Bank, leaving 73 people homeless, in what the United Nations reported as the largest demolition operation in years. The demolition brings to 689 the number of structures demolished across the West Bank, the highest number since 2016. The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem said the mass demolition was likely an opportunistic move by the Israeli government while the eyes of the world were focused on the U.S. election.

[drev-the-ambassador]

It's sometime in the 1200’s. Men have come from the west, and they speak the language some - not you necessarily, but some -of the people on this small strip of sparsely populated land recognize, even if they don’t understand it. You’ve traded with the western men before, been attacked by them as well, just like a while ago, when they came. You and your people struck back, but nonetheless. Someone tells you that you must pay taxes now. You have a king now. You are handed a cross. You have a king now. A Swedish king.

It’s 1809. You are in Porvoo. The war is still ongoing, but yet, here you are, to swear an oath to your new king. No, this is no king, this man is an emperor. Alexander the First. He promises you that you can keep your religion, your old Swedish laws and your rights. The estates swear their oaths of allegiance. At the end of the ceremony, the tsar tells you that you and your people have now been heightened to a nation among nations. You are not sure what that means - there is no nation, no country, just nine provinces, the Åland islands and some land from the north, where Tornio- river marks the border between two countries - the one you belonged to yesterday and the one you’ll belong to from this day on.  Next autumn, the Treaty of Fredrikshamn is signed by the representatives of both, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Russian Empire. Sweden gave up the nine läns, the islands and the strip of land from the north forever, and they would be forever a part of Russia.  You wonder what you should do. Russians have given the citizens three years to decide where they wish to live; Sweden or Russia. You don’t particularly like either option, but there is no third option. There is no land between east and west.

It’s 1899. The tsar, Nicholas the Second, did not agree to meet with the men bringing him the Great Petition to end the February manifesto. The Grand Duchy of Finland does not have its own postal service anymore. The diet can no longer decide the laws; Russians decide them now. You don’t understand how the emperor could do this to his loyal citizens. They’re telling rumours that there are people in Russia who want to take the autonomy away once and for all. You hope those are only rumors.

It’s 1917. Everything is chaos.The Great War is raging. There was a second revolution in Russia; the bolsheviks have the power now. You are at a loss of what to do. The Finnish Parliament declares that it now holds the greatest legislative power in the Grand Duchy. The working class and the middle class are not getting along, haven’t been since the years of oppression. Everything is changing -  you can feel it.

It’s 6th of December, 1917. The Parliament has just approved the declaration of independence made only two days earlier. Now, for the first time ever, you all have to stand on your own two feet - there is no motherland to take care of you if you mess up. You wonder if you’ll survive a decade here, in this sparsely populated land between east and west. You swear to do everything it takes.

It’s 2017. Some teenage girl is writing this pretentious text at 3:15 AM in November. In the independent Republic of Finland.

Finland’s 100 years of Independence 6.12.1917-6.12.2017

Finland is both very old and very young. The ancestors of the people living in Finland today - and of the Sami people especially -  are among the first humans to have settled down in Europe, and the bedrock on which Finland rests is among the oldest in the world. However, the Finnish written language was developed only in the 1500’s by Mikael Agricola and the first books written in Finnish were published in 1870. In the 1700’s, the concept of “Finnish” being separate from “Swedish” regarding the language and some cultural aspects was born, but really being Finnish like we are Finnish today wasn’t born until the latter half of the 19th century.

Parts of the area known as Finland today were annexed by the Kingdom of Sweden at different times. Some areas of Finland were a part of Sweden for around 600 years, some less than 60. As a part of Sweden Finland wasn’t really… Finland. It consisted of the provinces, or läns, though one of them was called Varsinais-Suomi, Proper Finland, or Egentliga Finland in Swedish. Only in 1809, when Sweden lost the Finnish War to the Russian Empire and gave up its eastern areas, did Aleksanteri I, Alexander I, unify the läns under the name “Suomen suurruhtinaskunta”, “the Grand Duchy of Finland” and make the Grand Duchy an autonomous region within the empire.

As a part of Russia Finland was doing quite well, better than as a part of Sweden. It’s impossible to say if Finland would’ve been better off as a part of Sweden all along, but it can be said with certainty that as a part of Sweden Finland most likely wouldn’t have become an independent country. The Diet of Finland wasn’t called until 1863 even though Alexander promised to do so in like 1812, but Finnish people either didn’t mind or didn’t care. Finland was also one of the most peaceful parts of the Russian Empire; the Finnish people were either very loyal to the czar OR, again, they didn’t really care. Nonetheless, Finland gained its own postal service, currency and eventually the Diet was called as well. The Finnish language was to become equal to Swedish in 20 years, and the national awakening was bringing with it the Golden Age of Finnish Art.

A product of the Golden Age, Raatajat rahanalaiset (Kaski) (1893) by Eero Järnefelt, English translation being “Under the Yoke (Burning the Brushwood) ; Wage Slaves / Burn-Beating”. 

In 1899, just as Finland had started to embrace its Finnishness, the Russification of Finland, known in Finland as Sortokaudet, the Years of Oppression, began with the February Manifesto by Nikolai II, Nicholas II. The postal service had been shut down earlier, but now all the power from the Finnish politicians in the Diet was given over to the Russians. The use of Finnish was no longer encouraged, now everyone was forced to learn Russian. Finnish people tried to appeal to the czar, students collecting half a million names (about ¼ of the population) into the Suuri adressi, the Great Petition, by skiing from village to village, only for the czar to decline the delegation. Finnish politicians started to be replaced by Russians. Finland was slowly losing its autonomy.

A famous painting, Hyökkäys (1899) by Edvard Isto. The name of the painting means “An attack”. It depicts the Russian double-headed eagle trying to rip the lawbook from the hands of the Finnish Maiden, the national personification of Finland. It became a symbol of the resistance towards the Russification of Finland.

 In 1905 the revolution ended the Russification, and the Finnish Parliament was formed - it has barely changed since, by the way. With this reform of the Finnish political system, Finland also became the 2nd country in the world to give women the right to vote, and the first country in the world to give everyone, regardless of gender, equal political rights. The first women in the world elected as Members of Parliament were Finnish. After this brief period of time Russification was put into action again. It was only ended by the October Revolution in 1917. Which brings us to our next topic...

End of the Year 1917

In 1917 the two Russian revolutions took place, at the beginning and at the end of the year.This unrest made the working class and middle class, who were not on very good terms with each other otherwise, to agree on one thing: They wanted independence.

On November 15th the Finnish Parliament declared itself to hold the highest legislative power in Finland.

A newspaper article from Viipurin Sanomat from 10.11.1917, telling about the decision the Parliament made to transfer the power (in Finland) that earlier was held by the czar to 3 people chosen by the Parliament.

The suggestion, voting and the final result of the plenary session where the Parliament ended up deciding to ditch their previous idea of electing those 3 people and just having the legislative power to itself.

On 4th of December the government - or P.E. Svinhufvud’s Independence Senate (P.E. Svinhufvudin itsenäisyyssenaatti) - gave the Declaration of Independence.

A picture of Svinhufvud’s Senate and the original Finnish Declaration of Independence. A link to the English translation of the text.

On the 5th, the Declaration was published for all the people of Finland to see - however, the rising tensions between the working class and the middle class, as well as the famine closing in kind of distracted the people.

On December 6th the Parliament voted in favor of Independence. The votes were 100-88, those 88 being the Social Democrats who’d wanted to negotiate with the bolsheviks before independence. This day was chosen as the national day of Finland, the Finnish Independence Day. However, on 6th of December in the year 1917, the newly gained independence did not stir much positive emotions. According to the memoirs of a Finnish author, Lauri Arra, that year, “everyone waited for or sensed that some terrible disaster was going to happen”. This terrible disaster was waiting for the newly born nation in the January of 1918, only a few weeks later.

To be a real country, other countries must recognize the independence first. Right away Finland asked Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, Norway and Great Britain to recognize the new country’s independence. You might have noticed that a key player in this becoming-a-country-independent-from-Russia-and-asking-others-to-recognize-our-breaking-away-from-Russia-process is missing: Russia.

No, Finland did not ask Russia to recognize our independence at first. However, all the other countries refused to recognize Finland as independent before the country Finland was trying to break free from approved of said breaking free first, and so Finland had to turn eastward with an apologetic smile and go: “...Please?” I mean, I assume that’s how it went, I dunno, I wasn’t there.

The first ones to make a move were the Social Democrats: they asked their eastern comrades to recognize Finland as a proper nation. Lenin agreed to do so if someone came and asked. On 29th of December Svinhufvud himself, with the other negotiators, traveled to St. Petersburg. The Finnish delegation was forced to wait for hours in some room outside the room where all the important stuff was happening.

Then, just before midnight, literally minutes before the year 1917 came to a close, the Finns were handed a note, a piece of paper, with which Soviet Russia recognized Finland as an independent nation.

Said piece of paper.

Recognition

Soviet Russia was the first country to recognize Finland’s independence on December 31st, 1917. The confirmation for the recognition was given on January 4th, 1918. The next countries to recognize Finland as a country were France, Sweden and Germany, on January 4th as well. Other countries followed, even though countries like USA and Great Britain recognized Finland only after WWI, to make sure Finland wouldn’t go and join the bad guy Germany, so to say. (Krhm.)

A screencap of the Wikipedia article on the Finnish Declaration of Independence because it had the handy list here. On top of these countries, Romania, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Mexico and Hungary recognized Finland in 1920. Paraguay and Luxembourg followed in 1921, Serbia in 1922, and finally Afghanistan and Albania in 1928.

Map of Finland in 1917.

Here’s the end of part 1 of the Finnish Independence post. This focused on the history, but the next part, which I will hopefully publish soon, will focus on how we celebrate our independence. I hope you enjoyed. 

Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivää!

[jam2289]

Three Men Who Would Not be King

It's rare for someone to give up power. That's especially true if you believe yourself to be a good ruler, and you probably wouldn't be a ruler unless you thought you were a good ruler. So, it's almost never done. Most people hold on to as much power as they can get for as long as they can. They step away only when they are forced to. But every now and then, a leader comes along that takes power, and yet doesn't seem to want it. So they decide to walk away on their own.

In 594 BC Solon remade the laws of Athens and created the Athenian Constitution. He got people to swear to abide by the laws. And then, instead of remaining head of the state. Instead of being King. Instead of ruling and wielding power he... get this... exiled himself for 10 years. Yes, that's right. He kicked himself out of his own city. The adventures he had traveling around for the next decade are a series of epic and legendary adventures. But exiling himself so that he couldn't change the laws, and wouldn't be King, that's a singularly impressive moment.

In 458 BC the Roman Republic was losing a war. A farmer named Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was called upon. He had been Consul for a brief time before. Now, he was made dictator. He formed an army. Marched it against the Aequi, beat them in an odd battle which is very similar to one Julius Caesar would have many years later, and then came back to Rome. He resigned after 16 days in office. He saved the Roman Republic well within 16 days, and then voluntarily left office. An office that he had a legal right to hold for 6 months, and an office that most people in his position would have held for the rest of their lives. Instead, he went back to his farm.

On April 30th, 1789 George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States. There had been some uncertainty as to what form of government the United State of America would have.

James McHenry was Secretary of War under George Washington and John Adams and recorded this brief conversation in his journal when Ben Franklin was walking out of the Constitutional Convention on September 17th, 1787.

- - - - - - -

Elizabeth Powel: "Well, Doctor what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?"

Benjamin Franklin: "A republic, if you can keep it."

- - - - - - -

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were both overseas at the time. Jefferson as minister to France and Adams as minister to Great Britain. They still had their views though. Here is part of a letter from Jefferson to Adams on November 13th, 1787, in response to seeing the results of the Constitutional Convention.

- - - - - - -

"How do you like our new constitution? I confess there are things in it which stagger all my dispositions to subscribe to what such an assembly has proposed. The house of federal representatives will not be adequate to the management of affairs either foreign or federal. Their President seems a bad edition of a Polish king. He may be reelected from 4. years to 4. years for life. Reason and experience prove to us that a chief magistrate, so continuable, is an officer for life. When one or two generations shall have proved that this is an office for life, it becomes on every succession worthy of intrigue, of bribery, of force, and even of foreign interference. It will be of great consequence to France and England to have America governed by a Galloman or Angloman. Once in office, and possessing the military force of the union, without either the aid or check of a council, he would not be easily dethroned, even if the people could be induced to withdraw their votes from him. I wish that at the end of the 4. years they had made him for ever ineligible a second time. Indeed I think all the good of this new constitution might have been couched in three or four new articles to be added to the good, old, and venerable fabrick, which should have been preserved even as a religious relique."

- - - - - - -

Three other major founding fathers didn't attend because they didn't support how much the Constitution was centralizing power: John Hancock, Patrick Henry, and Samuel Adams. George Mason, the godfather of the Bill of Rights, refused to sign. And many other delegates refused to attend, left early, or refused to sign because they believed the central authority was too great. Patrick Henry's response to his invitation was that he... “smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy.”

In a letter to George Washington shortly after his election James McHenry addressed him as a King.

- - - - - - -

"Though I may be among the last in congratulating my dear general, upon his elevation to a rank which few men are born to enjoy and still fewer deserve, yet I am persuaded you will believe that I feel as much sincere joy on the occasion, as those who may have been earlier in their demonstrations. You are now a King under a different name and I am well satisfied that sovereign prerogatives have in no age or country been more honorably obtained, or that at any time will they be more prudently and wisely exercised. This expectation excites in every bosom the finest sensations and I am sure had a secret and powerful influence in disposing the minds of the people to embrace the new constitution. That you may reign long and happy over us and never for a moment cease to be the public favorite is a wish that I can truly say is congenial to my heart. Please visit me enroute to New York."

- - - - - - -

George Washington had James Madison write a farewell address for him in 1792, because Washington was planning on going back to his farm. But, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, who were political rivals, both encouraged Washington to do another term because of the tensions both within the United States, and with foreign powers.

He agreed. But one term later, in 1797, he had Hamilton rewrite that farewell address, and he had it published. George Washington walked away. It's an astonishing act that we don't recognize today largely because of what George Washington did, because of the precedent that he set for the United States and the world.

The King of England, George the third, was impressed. Rufus King was the American minister to Britain. Here's part of a letter from May 3rd, 1797, about when he was talking to British royal court painter Benjamin West about what King George thought of Washington voluntarily leaving office.

- - - - - - -

"But that in regard to General Washington, he told him since his resignation that in his opinion "that act closing and finishing what had gone before and viewed in connection with it, placed him in a light the most distinguished of any man living, and that he thought him the greatest character of the age."

- - - - - - -

George Washington's farewell address was published on September 19th, 1796 with the title "The Address of Gen. Washington to the People of America on His Declining the Presidency of the United States". In that letter he addresses many issues that are central to keeping the Republic alive and well, issues that are just as relevant to us today. One of them being a system of checks and balances and a separation of powers.

This greatness of character is a rare quality. As Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." And as Montesquieu observed, "Anyone who possesses power has a tendency to abuse it. It is an eternal truth. They tend to go as far as the barriers will allow."

But sometimes, sometimes there is a Solon, or a Cincinnatus, or a George Washington. A leader that steps forward to fulfill their duty, to serve the people, and when that is done they step away again. May there always be such rare greatness among men.

________________________________________________

Read more of Jeff's thoughts at: http://www.jeffreyalexandermartin.com/

[labourpress]

Andrew Gwynne MP speech to the Local Government Association’s Conference 2017

***CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY***

Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Andrew Gwynne speaking at Local Government Association Conference 2017, said:

Thank you for inviting me here to speak today.

It is a privilege to be here with you this week, I want to begin by thanking the LGA for all the work you do championing local voices on the national stage - and I want to thank the thousands of councillors and council officers and staff who demonstrate the commitment you have to your communities through all your hard work.

I wish to also echo the comments of the Chair, Lord Gary Porter, who in his speech to conference this week commended councils who speedily undertook new safety checks on their high-rise buildings. This is a difficult and challenging time for local authorities, but one which the sector has responded to with the urgency that it requires.

Although we are not in the same party, I want to say clearly to you Gary, that Labour will work to back you up as you continue to champion the cause of local government here at the LGA.

I hope you will continue to see me as a strong ally, standing up for local government in Westminster.

I'm sure you will agree that ensuring local government has appropriate mechanisms for financing, and that clarity from central government on how this funding will be delivered should not be a party political issue.

My message to government is this: You cannot empower local government if you impoverish it.

We share with you your concerns on cuts to local government.

I also want to pay tribute to the work of Mayor Sir Steve Bullock and Councillor Sharon Taylor, who have both played a leading role in local government and as Deputy Leaders of the LGA Labour Group. I want to thank them for their long service to Labour in local government.

I also want to thank leader of the LGA Labour Group, Nick Forbes - as council leader in Newcastle he has demonstrated the difference a you can makes - investing in projects that are good for the economy of the city, good for the profile of the city, but also help the council’s finances in the longer term. Last year he said, and I think it's worth repeating, as central government appears to not be filling many with confidence:

“If you want to see economic credibility, if you want to see an ability to govern, if you want to see leadership, look at what Labour is doing in power now, look at what we are achieving in local government right now, and look at what Labour Councillors are doing for the communities across the country.”

In Liverpool – they have set up their own not for profit energy company – Liverpool Leccy.

Lewisham have developed new ways of developing housing for the homeless – in place/ladywell with pop up housing and community faciltiies.

Bristol ‘works’ giving every young person a quality work experience placement.

Thanks Nick, and I look forward to working with you to make sure that the voice of local government continues to be heard on a national scale.

I want to start by expressing my concern at the comments made by the Secretary of State on this stage earlier this week.

He has failed as your 'champion' in central government.

I want to be very clear on this -

I have not met a local government officer or councillor who has underplayed the tragedy of Grenfell or not asked searching questions about how this could have been avoided.

However, what I have seen is leadership, competence and empathy that has been sorely lacking in central government, and from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

He told you that local government faced a looming crisis in confidence - he's wrong. It is his government that are facing the looming crisis in confidence.

Councils of all complexions, and their staff, from across London have come together to help.

We all know our local government has seen an overall budget cut of 40% and we all must agree that when authorities are forced to cut back on core services, collecting waste, running children’s centres and libraries in order to plug growing funding gaps - there is something seriously wrong with the management of finances in central government.

And yet the we find ourselves now in an even worse situation -

Even if councils stopped filling in potholes, maintaining parks and open spaces, closed all children's centres, libraries, museums and leisure centres, turned off every street light and shut all discretionary bus routes, they still would not have saved enough money to plug the funding gap.

The LGA has been warning of the impact of these cuts on councils for the past 7 years of Tory Government - but these warnings have fallen on deaf ears in whitehall.

Back in 2012, Sir Merrick Cockell, the LGA’s then Chairman, warned that by the end of the decade councils could be forced to wind down services unless we saw urgent action on the crisis in adult social care funding.

Five years later, the crisis is even worse - the funding gap now £5.8 billion - and yet the Secretary of State stood in front of you all 2 days ago and claimed that 'Whitehall is listening'.

The fact is social care is in crisis – everyone is saying this now. These are people’s families. What kind of society are we when we can’t prioritise decent care and help when people need it.

I know and appreciate that Local Government is filled with expertise, talent and leadership - and his department’s lack of awareness highlights how detached the Government is from the real people making changes throughout our communities.

Local government has long been recognised as one of the most efficient parts of the public sector, leading the way on innovation, transformation and shared services.

They do an incredible job in often difficult circumstances. I say that having been a councillor on Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council for 12 years. My wife has been a Tameside councillor for 17 years, and I know the very difficult decisions she and her colleagues have had to make, and continue to have to make as a result of the rigid adherence to austerity.

Why is it this government can find money for the DUP to prop them up in a shoddy deal but can’t find the money for our public services.

My political career began in Local Government.

I first entered politics as a councillor in my home ward of Denton West and spent 12 years there serving my community like many of you. The first political campaign that I got involved in as a newly elected councillor in 1996 was against the decision to close Denton post office, which was located on the market square. We lost that battle and overnight that market lost 25% of its footfall and never recovered.

I know whichever party you may represent you will be able to tell me a similar story in your ward.

When I took on the post of Shadow Secretary of State for Local Government I thought I would look back to the maiden speech that I made 12 years ago - it was during a debate on communities.

In the speech I spoke of the honour and pride I felt to represent my community - first in local government and then in Parliament - the area where I have always lived, where I grew up, went to school and am now bringing up my own family.

I know all of you share the same pride in the areas you serve, day in day out, dedicating your own time to help people in need.

Today, I'm proud to stand here representing a party that is committed to giving you and your communities more power to shape the town centres that you represent.

We will put communities at the heart of planning and will update compulsory purchase powers to make them more effective as a tool to drive regeneration and unlock planned development and lift the cap to ensure councils can build the affordable homes we need.

The next Labour Government will also strengthen powers to protect our high streets - protect post offices, pharmacies, banks, pubs and independent shops and put in place measures to reduce the number of vacancies on our high-streets.

These sorts of locally owned businesses play a major role in serving our communities and it is with pride I can say that the next Labour Government will end the closure of Crown Post Office branches. We will also set up a commission to establish a Post Bank, owned by the Post Office and providing a full range of banking services in every community.

As your Shadow Secretary of State for Local Government I will show the Government what can be done when local government gets more freedom to innovate to meet the needs of their communities - and then as your Secretary of State I will work with you to make it happen. I will be your champion around the cabinet table.

Your role as local politicians will be central to making that happen.

It is not enough to say that Whitehall is listening.

With Brexit must come genuine and meaningful devolution, and regional and local leaders need to be involved in the process of leaving the EU and shaping what post-Brexit Britain will look like.

Voters did not vote to leave the EU to take back control from Brussels only for it to be held in Whitehall. Any local powers must be given back to local decision makers.

Andy Burnham made this clear to conference yesterday - Greater Manchester, like other regions, is ready to play a part and make a constructive contribution to the process of leaving the European Union.

It was claimed after local elections in May that regular meetings will be held with regional leaders, but yet again, local leaders appear to have been sidelined by this Government.

This is not the only example where those working in local government are being under-appreciated - and often also forced to take the blame when poor decisions are made in Whitehall.

With the Secretary of State shifting blame to local government - my first priority in this job is to ensure that you have a champion in Westminster - in me -

This conference has demonstrated that certainty over local government finance is not a party political issue - and I will be joining the LGA and many other voices calling for an end to an ideologically driven approach to the way the government is managing it's budgets.

There is a growing consensus in all parties that the austerity experiment has failed and is over - but in its place have emerged political and economic black holes in the government's plans for local government finance.

Last week I asked Sajid Javid three times as I sat opposite him in the Commons to clarify the Government's position on the missing local government finance bill, and I know the LGA have been asking for similar clarifications.

He has not responded.

We heard no further details from the Secretary of State during his speech to conference this week. I wrote to the Secretary of State today again asking for clarification and I will share the response with the LGA.

Following the Grenfell fire, I know many local authorities have been undertaking safety checks in your housing and installing fire prevention systems and I know many Labour councils have gone beyond that by looking at other public buildings like schools and hospitals.

Councils could face a bill of at least £600m because Government is failing to commit to funding the extra fire safety measures.

We have also been urging clarity from the Secretary of State on the support that will be provided to local authorities to ensure that housing is safe. There has been a suggestion that funding support will be offered, whilst only on a 'case by case' basis.

This is simply not good enough.

Councils have been warning that if no further funding is provided from Government other schemes like housebuilding could be impacted.

And yet the only response we have had from the Secretary of State was during his speech to you at this conference where he passed the buck and refused to admit it is his Government that has got a lot to answer for.

The immediate and efficient response to this crisis from many councils across the UK has been in stark contrast to the woefully inadequate response from central government. Local Government should not be required to make even more 'difficult decisions' after years of austerity to ensure that properties are safe for residents following this disaster.

Labour is urging Government to provide ‘emergency funds’ for councils to check cladding and install sprinklers in tower blocks around the country - and drawing on some of the practice of councils across the UK in the past week, central government must make safety of residents the priority in its response.

We've been through some testing times recently with horrific terrorist attacks on Westminster, my own city of Manchester, at Borough Market and Finsbury Park.

I pay tribute to the way all our communities pull together in the immediate aftermath of these terrible events.

Terrorists will seek to sew division in society but we will always stand tall and face down those who want to breed hatred.

And I pay tribute to the way our councils coordinated the emergency responses with the police, fire, NHS and others and I want to say a genuine, heartfelt thank you to our local leaders Sadiq Kahn, Nickie Aiken, Andy Burnham and Sir Richard Leese, Peter John and Richard Watts and all who cam together.

I have children and I can't begin to imagine what these families have gone through.

Many of the challenges we are facing will not be solved if austerity continues.

The current government have kicked the can down the road on the issue of adult social care. This crisis made soley in Downing Street - but now it is your street that is having to pay for it.

Ensuring that our local government has adequate funding to provide core services is not something that should be up for debate.

Labour wants to see a country based on hope and shared prosperity and Councils everywhere are already working to achieve that.

Working with you in local government, we want to take further the good work you already do - leading the way on innovation, transformation and shared services - and building a sense of pride in the cities, towns and villages you represent.

So I this to you Secretary of State stop talking down our councils and councillors, the failings of one council should not be used as an excuse to talk down those councils rising to the challenges every day.

Saj - it's your job to work with councils and support the work they do. To be their voice in Government.

If you wont - step aside - because I will.

[consultingangelwarlockofgalifrey]

My Rant...

I rarely come on here anymore but I just wanted to say my piece on this infuriating election and the way Britain is run.

I’m not sorry and I have a lot to say so bear with me.

This all started because of the referendum. A referendum which showed up just how discordant and split the country truly is. I do not agree with the result and am very upset we are leaving the EU.

All I have heard though since the results came out, have been politicians calling it the “will of the people”. Ok. A small majority voted us out. But that’s right. A SMALL majority.

And that was only of the people who actually voted.

There a many of those who couldn’t vote (because of age restrictions) or wouldn’t vote for whatever reasons they told themselves, and those who did vote for remain, who did not want to leave the EU. In my books that far out numbers the people who voted leave.

It is not the “will of the people” if the majority of the country didn’t vote for it. That is a small sector, just like a lot of the politics in this country has been about lining the pockets of the wealthy, the 5% of our population who do anything they can to better their own lives and damn the consequences it has on others.

I wish people were more generous and thoughtful. More considerate of the people they share their lives with. Believe it or not your life doesn’t just affect your own. You come into contact with countless people every time you go to work, or school, or even just go for a walk. How do you know that the smile you gave that one random person didn’t make their day? Because it could have. People’s actions have an impact in the smallest ways and the biggest. Some are just more noticeable.

Especially by those who hold power in parliament. The term “holding power” is distasteful and it’s so controlling. But that’s unfortunately the society we live in. Where there will always be those who think just because they are well off or own a company think they have more rights to things like education or healthcare than the rest of us.

The whole, “private versus state” thing is ridiculous divide and actually gets in the way of education. Parents who say “I’m paying for a better education for my child.” are actually saying “I’m paying for white boards or more resources to be pumped into the school.” That’s not an education. That just fancy toys. An education is when you learn something. When you actually come away from that day of sitting in classrooms inspired by something a teacher said or what you read or something that proved to you, yes you can do that thing you were struggling with. That won’t happen by throwing more money at it and shoving all kids into the same way of teaching and testing. The best teachers I had were ones who had a dialogue with the students. Where we were able to question the text books and engage with it ourselves. OK I was a shy student who didn’t feel confident enough to share my views and this post is hard for me to make but here I am.

Now onto the election and the person who calls herself the leader of Britain.

She stands there talking about working together and providing stability, when the only thing her government has done, has separated this country and made so many u-turns I’m surprised parliament hasn’t fallen down into the Thames. She hasn’t wanted to engage or debate or trust the public with the truth.

She keeps hiding behind statements and the party line, just like so many politicians have before. Now I don’t agree with some things Corbyn says either. Like his views on Brexit but we aren’t voting for one person we are voting for the party.

May is a poor example of a leader and much of what she says does not stack up. Alot of wwhat the party stands for is truly shocking and is saddening to see how it is still in today’s politics. Serving the interests of the better off in a hope that it will magically get the population more money is not a stable or even workable frame of economics. It doesn’t happen like that. Hasn’t happened. The rich get richer and hell to the rest.

The media is just as guilty for misleading people. And I have never been more ashamed of the BBC. The national broadcaster and they keep hushed up on what the conservatives are doing but any other party and they line them up in the firing line.

Teresa May says she is doing what she is doing for the people.

To which I say to her, really?

Look around.

Are the children who’s parents can’t afford to get them new school uniform or lunches because you keep cutting their benefits and rising taxes being looked after?

Are the elderly in dire need of care and attention getting the support they need?

Are those ill and ailing people in hospitals who in recent years have had to wait the longest time for care which should be readily available feeling like they are being cared for at all?

Are the people who provide these services getting the resources they need?

Not from what I have seen, read or heard.

How can she stand there and say her plans are stable and providing a future to protect us when she herself has voted on issues to block progression, to block support getting to those who need it.

The facts are out there that she doesn’t support the lgbtq community, that she doesn’t support our elderly, that she doesn’t support our children. So how can she stand in front of the country and promise to look after ‘the people’ when she refuses to acknowledge a majority of the population.

And when she does in her speeches, it’s to use as a point against labour. She brings up hashed old arguments from Camerons government, from Blairs government.

OK labour hasn’t always been great and there are still issues within the party that need to be addressed. But I have never felt a more relieving breath of fresh air than when I first heard Corbyn speak. For once there wasn’t a politician who said, the Tories do this, the tories do that. He spoke about what the issues were and how they would be addressed.

Like I said before there are some things I do not agree with him on but when will you ever agree with some one on every single thing.

I just want May to take a step back and really think in what way is she representative of anyone who has any loving, generosity in their hearts, who would put others before themselves . Leaving the EU is not progressive. Taking money away is not progressive. Excluding members of our society is not progressive.

All these stupid political borders and separations we have on this planet.

A show I watch, that I implore you all to watch, Sense8 is one of the most beautiful and uplifting pieces of drama I have ever seen on screen. It has representation and diversity. And in its second season has a really powerful speech about who some one is.

It says “labels are the opposite of understanding. [….]

Who am I? Do you mean where I’m from? What I one day might become? What I do? What I’ve done? What I dream? Do you mean … what you see or what I’ve seen? What I fear or what I dream? Do you mean who I love? Do you mean who I’ve lost? Who am I?

I guess who I am is exactly the same as who you are. Not better than, not less than. Because there is no one who has been or will ever be exactly the same as either you or me.”

We are one planet, one species which has to live together. If our governments truly wanted the best for us there would be no restrictions placed on minorities or the freedom of movement.

If you look at someone and think they don’t belong because they are different, than you are one of the worst types of people.

Difference is what makes humans so amazingly beautiful. And our capacity to love and embrace that difference is breathtaking.

A human being is a human being whether they are black, asian, white, gay, bi, straight, trans, female, male and all other variations.

If you let hatred in, you’ve already lost. If you let disrespect in, why should someone respect you?

Everyone should be free to be who they are, wherever they are.

Our governments need to change. They need to change to reflect the people who live now.

So when Teresa May stands up and opens her mouth, how can she possibly stand there and say she is working for the people when nothing she has done reflects that.

I don’t have any impact on many people’s lives and I doubt this will reach anyone beyond this space, but to anyone who will read this, there needs to be a way we can make a difference. Differences make us who we are and fuel a progressive society.

The whole Brexit disaster shouldn’t have happened. After campaigning for Scotland to stay, united, stronger together it was ridiculous that the next thing to happen was to shut the EU out. I’m not surprised Scotland wants to leave England again.

The whole point of the EU was to bring peace between our countries after the horrific world wars. Look at our world today. We are breaking apart at the seams. Yes the wars in Iraq and Syria predate Brexit but we don’t have to look far to know who to blame for that. If anything this is a time to work closer together not apart. So again how can Teresa May say she will be the one to bring stability to the country when it was her party that tore it apart.

So go and vote. Use that vote that so many have fought for in our past. Use the privilege of the vote this country has to make a stand against those who want to silence us.

We are better together. We only have to prove it.

[gyrlversion]

Ministers warn election could be on the cards within WEEKS

Brexit chaos could plunge Britain into a general election in weeks, ministers said yesterday.

As the Government’s strategy went into meltdown, senior ministers ‘war-gamed’ scenarios that could see a national poll called three years ahead of schedule.

Theresa May appeared to hint that an election might be needed to break the deadlock – telling MPs she was not prepared to accept a soft Brexit even if they voted for one. The Prime Minister had been forced to abandon plans to put her withdrawal agreement before the Commons for a third time today after DUP leader Arlene Foster maintained her opposition.

Scroll down for video 

The defeated Prime Minister photographed leaving the Palace of Westminster tonight after enduring yet another torrid day over Brexit

And ministers were braced for MPs to take control of Brexit last night in a bid to make Mrs May pursue other options – or even end the process altogether. The move by Oliver Letwin of the Tories and Yvette Cooper of Labour would let MPs hold ‘indicative votes’ tomorrow on options – including revocation of Article 50 – which Mrs May would then be told to deliver.

In other developments:

Jacob Rees-Mogg gave Mrs May a glimmer of hope by telling a private meeting of Eurosceptic MPs that he would vote for her plan provided the DUP came on board

Penny Mordaunt warned fellow Cabinet ministers that the Government could face an outbreak of French-style ‘gilet jaune’ protests if it failed to deliver Brexit;

Former Cabinet minister John Whittingdale became the most senior Tory to warn publicly that he would back Mrs May only if she agreed to set out a timetable for her own departure;

Mrs May sparked a backlash from Eurosceptic Tories by warning of a ‘slow Brexit’ if her plan is rejected again – and appearing to rule out No Deal;

The Prime Minister voiced regret for her attack last week on ‘game-playing’ MPs;

Downing Street said that the Commons would be asked to vote tomorrow on whether to change the law to extend the UK’s exit date until at least April 12.

The historic moment the Government lost the Letwin amendment by 329 votes to 302, a whopping majority of 27 for the rebels. The last time a similar vote was held a fortnight ago it lost by two votes

Richard Harrington was one of three MPs to stand down on Monday night over the crucial vote

Another MP to stand down was Steve Brine, the MP for Winchester (pictured)

Alistair Burt and Mr Green joined the rebellion just a day after they were part of a delegation of ministers and former ministers invited by the Prime Minister to Chequers

Attorney General Geoffrey Cox told a meeting of the Cabinet that failure to pass Mrs May’s plan in the coming weeks would almost inevitably lead to an election.

Writing in the Daily Mail, he today makes a last-ditch appeal to hardline Leavers to get behind Mrs May – or face losing Brexit altogether. Two weeks ago his legal advice led many Tory MPs to reject the withdrawal agreement because of fears the UK could remain in the Irish border backstop.

But today he argues the plan’s disadvantages have been ‘exaggerated and demonised’ by opponents of Brexit.

If MPs do not vote for the agreement in the coming days, he says the Commons will ‘exert itself’ and try to force either a second referendum, or a plan that keeps the UK inside the customs union and single market.

He warns ‘powerful and unreconciled forces’ who opposed Brexit were still trying to stop it and says his biggest fear is the UK will never regain its ‘independence’.

He says: ‘We must grasp our freedom now and heed the beckoning call of the future, for if we do not, history will marvel that we spurned this fleeting moment of opportunity.’

No one wants another election! Only 12 PER CENT of the public say they want to go to the polls – but ministers say they WILL call one if MPs try to force a soft Brexit 

Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay leaving Downing Street with Theresa May today after cabinet, at which he is said to have again floated the idea of holding a General Election

The Government is prepared to pull the plug and force a General Election if MPs try to seize control of Brexit and make it softer than Theresa May‘s deal.

Ministers including Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay are said to have raised the prospect if Parliament votes this evening to wrestle control of the withdrawal process.

The Commons will tonight vote on a series of amendments to a Government motion that would pave the way to so-called indicative votes taking place on Wednesday.

These would allow MPs to show what sort of Brexit they wish to push through if a majority cannot be found for Mrs May’s twice-defeated deal.

The talk of forcing a General Election come despite an Opinium poll from two months ago finding that only 12 per cent of Britons would welcome another one, just two years after the last resulted in a hung Parliament.

Mr Barclay reportedly repeated at Cabinet today warnings he gave on television yesterday.

Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show he said that if the Commons took control of the order paper and votes for a different outcome, it would ‘potentially collide with fundamental commitments the Government has given in their manifesto’, though he said the vote itself would ‘not be binding’.

Explaining the scenario, he said: ‘What Parliament has done is vote for a number of contradictory things so we would need to untangle that but ultimately, at its logical conclusion, the risk of a general election increases because you potentially have a situation where Parliament is instructing the executive to do something that is counter to what it was elected to do.’

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox this morning gave a stark warning to MPs, telling BBC Radio 4’s Today: ‘I was elected, as 80 per cent of members were, to respect the referendum and leave the European Union. 

‘I was also elected on a manifesto that specifically said no single market and no customs union. 

 ‘That, for Conservative MPs who are honouring the manifesto, limits their room for manoeuvre. 

The former hardline Brexiteer turned May loyalist added that the prospect of a longer Brexit delay meaning participation in May’s European Elections would ‘unleash a torrent of pent-up frustration from voters’.    

‘I’m not sure that there are many people in the House of Commons who would fancy that particular meeting with voters,’ he said.

‘It would unleash a torrent of pent-up frustration from voters and I think that the major parties will do what they can to avoid having to fight those European elections.

‘There is nothing in politics like a little bit of self-interest to concentrate the minds, and I think, as we get towards that date, increasingly my colleagues will have to decide which of the limited options they want to follow.’

He urged MPs to back Mrs May’s deal, warning: ‘For a lot of my colleagues, I think they still believe there is a route to no deal. I have come to the conclusion some time ago that was unlikely given the House of Commons that we have.

‘I think we will see today that there is a mood in the House of Commons to stop us leaving without a deal, even if that means no Brexit. I think that is a constitutionally disastrous position.’

Theresa May indicated in the Commons earlier today that she would allocate Government time for indicative votes if the Letwin Amendment was defeated

At yesterday’s Cabinet meeting, Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay repeated his weekend warning that an election would be the logical conclusion of the Government losing control over the Brexit process.

Fellow ministers Liam Fox, Andrea Leadsom and Alan Cairns also warned that they believed an election was increasingly likely.

One source said: ‘If we lose control of the process then we are heading for an election.

‘We’ll either lose a confidence vote – in which case you could even get Corbyn without an election – or we will be forced to go for an election ourselves.’

Another source said: ‘It’s not just scaremongering, it’s the only way out of this.’

A Downing Street spokesman said that Mrs May was opposed to a general election.

But a senior Tory source acknowledged it was a growing possibility, adding: ‘The reason the Cabinet is so determined to get this deal through is that there is a full understanding that the alternatives are pretty grim.’

Mrs May told yesterday’s emergency Cabinet meeting that she hoped to put her agreement to the vote for a third time today.

But the move was vetoed by the DUP, whose support is seen as critical in persuading Eurosceptic Tories to fall in line.

The Tories who rebelled against Theresa May 

Twenty nine Tories including three ministers rebelled against the whip tonight to hand Theresa May a devastating defeat. They were: 

They were: 

Guto Bebb

Richard Benyon 

Nick Boles 

Steve Brine (minister)

Alistair Burt (minister)

Kenneth Clarke

Damian Collins 

Alberto Costa

Jonathan Djanogly 

George Freeman 

Damian Green 

Justine Greening 

Dominic Grieve 

Sam Gyimah

Richard Harrington (minister)

Joseph Johnson 

Phillip Lee 

Jeremy Lefroy 

Oliver Letwin

Paul Masterton

Andrew Mitchell

Nicky Morgan 

Robert Neill 

Sarah Newton 

Mark Pawsey 

Antoinette Sandbach

Nicholas Soames

Caroline Spelman

John Stevenson

Edward Vaizey (voted twice to abstain) 

The Prime Minister told MPs: ‘With great regret I have had to conclude that as things stand, there is still not sufficient support in the House to bring back a third meaningful vote.’

Mrs May’s deputy David Lidington last night said the Government still hoped to hold a vote this week. But the DUP appeared to be digging in. Deputy leader Nigel Dodds rounded angrily on Mrs May in the Commons yesterday after she said more time was needed to prepare Northern Ireland for the possibility of No Deal.

Mr Dodds said the Government was ‘entirely responsible’ for what he described as a ‘fundamental lack of preparation’.

Plans for the Government to put forward its own proposals for indicative votes were dropped ahead of yesterday’s meeting. Many ministers, including Dr Fox, Chris Grayling, Gavin Williamson and Mrs Leadsom, are opposed to the process. But Mr Lidington tried to head off a defeat last night by pledging that the Government would provide Commons time for MPs to try to reach an agreement on an alternative Brexit.

Sir Oliver told MPs his plan, which has been rejected by MPs twice since the start of the year, would allow Parliament to vote tomorrow on a string of Brexit options. These might include a customs union, a single market, a second referendum and even revocation of Article 50.

Mrs May said she was sceptical that the process would find a solution, adding: ‘No government could give a blank cheque to commit to an outcome without knowing what it is.’ Asked whether she would be prepared for a customs union if Parliament backed it, she replied: ‘No one would want to support an option which contradicted the manifesto on which they stood.’

Labour backed Sir Oliver’s plan. But its Brexit spokesman, Sir Keir Starmer, also refused to guarantee to back any resulting proposal.

Sir Oliver’s move to give MPs control over the path to Brexit attracted cross-party support and won by a convincing margin in the Commons to heap fresh pressure on Theresa May

Brexit Q&A – How a motley bunch of MPs plan to take control 

What amendments did MPs vote on?

The Speaker selected three for debate and vote yesterday. One, from Jeremy Corbyn, was a fudge designed to avoid splitting his own MPs and called for votes on a series of options – including a second referendum.

Another, from former Labour foreign secretary Margaret Beckett, would have forced MPs to be given a vote on whether to push ahead with No Deal or to delay Brexit.

But the most significant was proposed by former Tory Cabinet minister Oliver Letwin and backed by some Remainer Tories, Labour and other opposition parties. It was designed to take control of Brexit out of ministers’ hands.

What does the Letwin amendment do?

It changes the rules of the House of Commons, the standing orders, to pass control of the agenda from the Government and hand it to backbench MPs.

If it passes then tomorrow afternoon MPs will stage a series of so-called ‘indicative votes’ on what should happen next with Brexit. The Speaker will select the motions to be debated, which are likely to include a second referendum, Labour’s Brexit plan, a Customs Union Brexit, a so-called ‘Norway plus’ plan. Unusually MPs will vote on paper – pink slips which list the options. The votes will not be binding on the Government, but will send a strong signal about what kind of Brexit a majority of MPs are prepared to back and would heap pressure on Mrs May.

Why is he doing it?

Mr Letwin says he wants to stop No Deal because the Government hasn’t properly prepared for leaving without an agreement. He argues Parliament should take over the process to find a Brexit which can secure the support of the Commons. He is a supporter of the super-soft ‘Norway plus’ option, which is likely to mean the UK accepting single market rules without a say in them and paying vast contributions to the EU Budget. It could also mean a permanent customs union, making trade deals impossible.

What do critics say?

They say Mr Letwin’s plan amounts to a coup and is ‘constitutionally dangerous’. A leaked Whitehall analysis of the plans to let MPs take charge say they pose a ‘clear and present danger’ to ministers’ ‘ability to govern’. Yesterday Mr Letwin denied his proposal is a ‘massive constitutional revolution’.

Is a general election more likely?

Several senior ministers argued in Cabinet that if Parliament tried to instruct the executive to do something the Government deeply opposed, such as remaining in the customs union or the single market, an election could follow. Mrs May indicated as much in the Commons when she argued ‘no-one would want to support an option which contradicted the manifesto on which they stood’.

How could an election happen?

Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act, the Prime Minister cannot simply call an election. There are two ways one could result. The first is that two thirds of MPs vote for an election when Mrs May proposes one. The second is that the PM loses a confidence vote and nobody can win one – ie command a majority – within a two-week period.

Rebel MPs seize control of Brexit: Three ministers quit on night of drama in the Commons as 30 Tories defy May 

MPs wrestled control of Brexit from the hands of Theresa May last night, voting to hold a series of votes that could determine how – if at all – the UK leaves the European Union.

The Commons voted by 329 votes to 302 – a majority of 27 – to approve an amendment brought by Tory ex-minister Sir Oliver Letwin allowing it to take control of business on Wednesday from the Government. 

This will allow MPs to select their favorite Brexit option in so-called ‘indicative votes’, which are likely to include soft Brexit options and the possibility of remaining in the European Union. 

Three ministers were among 29 Tory rebels who defied the Prime Minister and backed the amendment. 

Minutes before the vote Watford’s Richard Harrington quit as an energy minister in order to support the Letwin plan, accusing the Government of ‘playing roulette’ with people’s lives.

He was followed by Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt and health minister Steve Brine. 

Other high profile Tories to rebel included former ministers Ken Clarke, Nicky Morgan, Justine Greening, Andrew Mitchell, Sam Gyimah, Damian Green, Alberto Costa and Dominic Grieve, plus Damian Collins, chairman of the Culture Committee.

The Government later lost the main motion by 327 votes to 300, the same margin. 

It came after MPs had narrowly rejected a backbench amendment brought by Dame Margaret Beckett to allow the Commons to have a vote if the UK is seven days away from leaving the EU without a deal, by 314 votes to 311, a majority of three. 

Pro-Europe Tory MP Nick Boles, who backed the indicative votes amendment, told the BBC: ‘It is a much better victory than any of us had dared hope.’

Mr Boles added: ‘We will be relying on the Government to reflect Parliament’s wishes.

‘If, ultimately, the Government refuses to listen to what Parliament has voted for then we will look to bring forward a Bill, pass an Act of Parliament that will require the Government to reflect Parliament’s wishes in its new negotiating mandate.’

These are the seven options for Brexit MPs could vote on this week if Mrs May is forced towards a softer Brexit

Fellow Tory rebel Guto Bebb said: ‘The scale of the Government’s defeat and the principled resignations of ministers Richard Harrington, Alistair Burt and Steve Brine tonight are more nails in the coffin of a Brexit deal that very few in the country or Parliament have ever wanted.

‘The Prime Minister has now lost control of this process. 

‘What is needed now in this national emergency is not more posturing or playing roulette with people’s lives but to give Parliament the time and space needed to work out what Brexit means, as well as begin preparing for important democratic elections to the European Parliament.’

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn also welcomed the result, hailing the fact the House had now ‘taken control’.

He said: ‘This Government has been an abject failure and this House must now find a solution…

‘This House must also consider whether any deal should be put to the people for a confirmatory vote.

‘Where this Government has failed, this House must, and I believe will, succeed.’  

Tory former minister Ed Vaizey voted both for and against Sir Oliver’s amendment, which is regarded as a formal abstention. 

Brexiteer Tory backbencher Andrew Bridgen said it was time for Theresa May to quit.

The post Ministers warn election could be on the cards within WEEKS appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress https://www.gyrlversion.net/ministers-warn-election-could-be-on-the-cards-within-weeks/

[jamieclawhorn]

Forget Boohoo, this big-brand growth and dividend leader is selling cheap

High-flying online fashion retail firm Boohoo Group  (LSE: BOO) trades on a mighty historic price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio close to 90. However, City analysts’ forecasts of double-digit increases in earnings over the next couple of years bring the forward P/E rating down to a ‘mere’ 49 or so for the trading period to February 2020.

High stakes

At a valuation like that, the stakes are high, and any slip in earnings will bring a sharp share-price reversal. We’ve seen it many times. Expectations are everything with fast-growing firms. Miss the earnings projection and it’s ‘look out below!’ Yet Boohoo is growing like mad and there’s no sign of any weakness whatsoever in the firm’s financial performance. Maybe it’s worth its high valuation and will go on to reward its investors handsomely in the years to come.

I think there probably is a fair bit of upside left for investors in Boohoo, but you’ll need a strong constitution to ‘hold’. However, if the valuation puts you off you may wish to consider Ted Baker  (LSE: TED) instead, which owns and operates what it describes as a “global lifestyle brand.”

The firm has grown from a single shirt specialist store in Glasgow and now sells clothes for men, women and children along with fragrance and accessories. Today, there are around 201 stores or concessions or outlets in Britain, 116 in Europe, 129 in North America, 89 in the Middle East, Asia and Africa regions, and nine in Australasia. There’s no sign that the expansion programme is running out of steam either. In fact, the opposite is true.

Expansion on track

Today’s interim results revealed that in the first half of the trading year the firm opened two new stores in the UK, three in the US, two in Germany and one in France, as well as gaining concessions with “leading department stores” in the UK, Europe and North America and establishing licensees in India, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore, Taiwan and Ukraine. Despite such progress, the shares have plunged around 10% today as I write, so why is that?

The figures are quite good. Revenue rose 3.5% compared to the equivalent period last year and adjusted earnings per share moved 5% higher. The directors even expressed their vote of confidence in the outlook by pushing up the interim dividend by 7.8%. The ‘problem’ as I see it is in the outlook statement. Chief executive Ray Kelvin CBE said in the report that he expects the second half of the year to “remain challenging” because of “external factors.”

However, conditions have been challenging in the retail sector for some time, but Ted Baker posted a 1.8% fall in unadjusted earnings per share today, and I reckon the stock market is in an unforgiving mood right now. Nevertheless, the growth story remains on course, and I see share price weakness now as an opportunity to grab a piece of the long-term potential on better terms. With the share price close to 2,076p, the forward P/E for the trading year to January 2020 sits just under 13 and the forward dividend yield is a little below 3.7%. Meanwhile, City analysts expect earnings to grow at around 10% a year. I think the stock is attractive.

You Really Could Make A Million

Of course, picking the right shares and the strategy to be successful in the stock market isn’t easy. But you can get ahead of the herd by reading the Motley Fool’s FREE guide, “10 Steps To Making A Million In The Market”.

The Motley Fool’s experts show how a seven-figure-sum stock portfolio is within the reach of many ordinary investors in this straightforward step-by-step guide. Simply click here for your free copy.

More reading

Why Boohoo’s share price has further to run after 650% gain in 3 years!

Boohoo share price: good value or trap?

Is the Boohoo share price about to breach previous highs?

What would it take for the Boohoo share price to double again?

Why I’d buy shares in this growing, dividend-paying AIM company

Kevin Godbold has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended boohoo group and Ted Baker. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors.

[republicstandard]

DUNKIRK: No, it is NOT About Brexit, You Bloody Simpletons

Ash Sharp Editor

Yesterday the good lady and I took a well deserved day off together, to curl up on the sofa and watch a good movie. Being my turn, I chose Dunkirk.  One of the great joys of being in a pan-European relationship is learning about each other's history, after all.

I'll leave the movie review to the to the professionals. I'm six months late anyway, but as Republic Standard has been running for only a month or so I beg your indulgence as I play a little catch-up. Movie reviews aren't my thing. I know my limits, and as much as I will wax lyrical about the meaning of art I am more than aware that I am not an artist- I will say that Dunkirk is a very good film indeed and you should see it if you are one of the few people on Earth slower at getting around to seeing films than I am. It does have a 94 on Metacritic though, just saying. It's pretty awesome. This movie's portrayal of the events is sublime, the cinematography is artful, real. The score perfect, Hans Zimmer at his un-nerving best.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

What I am annoyed by is elitist city-dwelling fools who used this movie to throw cheap barbs about how Britain is doomed as it leaves the European Union.

Of course, a movie about one of the most incredible military escapes in human history must be quashed. It might make the proles think that they aren't completely worthless.

Jenni Russell in the New York Times- "No Dunkirk Spirit Can Save Britain From Brexit Defeat";

How I wish that Christopher Nolan’s new film, “Dunkirk,” had not been released at this moment in history. The reviewers have been near unanimous in their praise: searing, complex, uncompromising about the savagery of war and death. Yet the essential message of the film, with its narrative of heroic retreat in order to fight another day, cannot help but feed the national pride in Britain’s capacity to triumph eventually, no matter what the odds.

Nothing could be less helpful to our collective psyche as the country blunders toward Brexit.

My fingers clench reflexively as I read, knowing that soon my eyeballs must surely swivel into the back of my head in the midst of a hopefully fatal grand-mal. Mrs. Russell is a Cambridge graduate and has worked inside the mainstream media establishment for her entire career. She is upper middle class through and through- and this is the face of pro-EU elitism, unfortunately. Wealthy, status-quo in all manners, vaguely socialist in politics so long as they don't feel the pinch themselves and dismissive of people below them on the ladder looking up. The majority of British people who could be bothered to vote decided to leave. The majority of British people define themselves as working class.

Dunkirk is a movie that strips these differences away. A Briton can easily spot the class differences between the characters- while stereotypes, these are not just memes. The Rear Admiral carries himself like a sea lord should, the 'tommies' are scared boys from the terraces and farms. The pilots, mostly from monied backgrounds, avoided the hell of land or sea combat for another kind of hell thousands of feet in the air. The entire meaning of this movie was about British identity. Collective British identity, that beyond the class differences between Britons there are indeed ties that bind. Between fathers and sons, about what duty means. Beyond class divide. It is the antithesis of what we see in the Remain camp.

Emile Simpson writing in Foreign Policy weighs in with a piece entitled "Brexit's Dunkirk Fantasyland".

Beyond trade, the memory of World War II evokes a sense of national unity, symbolized in the “Dunkirk spirit,” which can be taken to represent a cultural unity purportedly absent in modern Britain.

I have said on these pages before that the cultural unity of many Western nations is not yet absent but is sorely wounded. Mr. Simpson -who served my nation in the armed forces and for which I thank him- does not live on a council estate. He does not live in Blackburn.

He does not come from such a lifestyle. He comes from Oxford University and Sandhurst. If he cannot see the lack of unified feeling in England today, the lack of cultural meaning then I really am at a loss. How can you miss it unless you walk around looking at the sky? The media elite creates Far-Right boogeymen out of people like Tommy Robinson, denounce the President of the United States as a racist, and arrest people for criticizing Islam while the largest political party in the nation is riddled with Hard-Left anti-Semites.

This is not what I would consider being expressive of even a hint of the cultural unity on the scale represented by Dunkirk.

Charles Mudede, in a piece for The Stranger entitled "Dunkirk: The First Brexit Movie in the History of Cinema."

It's not just about Brexit/Dunkirk being a one-to-one dub: the Brits fleeing a Europe dominated by the German military/the Brits fleeing a Europe dominated by German banks. It's sadder than that. It is the acceptance that the lie is better than the truth.

Zimbabwean Mudede's latest piece for this site is entitled "Father Recognized Son Shot By a Non-Muslim White American Because of His Nike Socks." I think it's safe to say that he has an agenda. Even so, let us play the ball and not the man. Yes, this movie is a sad film. It's hard to imagine yourself in the shoes of those soldiers paying the ultimate price, going to their deaths in the certainty that the nation -your nation- was surely doomed to fall under the yoke of Nazism. The Wehrmacht was a monstrous machine, technologically and militarily superior in almost every way, and only defeated thanks to the combined sacrifice of millions from dozens of nations and the madness of those in charge of this death-dealer.

Is drowning in a few feet of water off the coast of Dunkirk a parallel to wrestling with the Deutsche Bundesbank? I don't know. I haven't done either. I do imagine though that being shot in the back as I run to a ship or taking shrapnel to the heart from a Stuka, as my friends die around me- that I can imagine is worse than the financial interest of my nation being rivaled -without bloodshed- by another, larger nation. Perhaps Emile Simpson, as a veteran, would do us the service of telling us.

Rafael Behr, in the Guardian, wrote a lovely diatribe entitled "Dunkirk reveals the spirit that has driven Brexit: humiliation."

There is a swelling body of evidence that Brexit is shaking confidence in the country’s international credibility, and cannot be completed in the allotted time without economic vandalism. There is also the referendum result, before which evidence is made to cower.

I fear we are about to rehearse the cycle of shame and resentment all over again. There are two routes ahead, neither free of humiliation. The enactment of Brexit will complete an economic, diplomatic and strategic devaluation that is prefigured already in sterling’s post-referendum slide.

The Pound is still fluctuating, but no longer due to Brexit uncertainty, according to economist Liam Halligan. The value of the currency is now near the value it held before the Brexit vote, manufacturing output to rise to a 10-year-high. Employment also rose by 102,000 from September to November 2017 to a record of 32.2million.

Prior to the referendum, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted UK growth of two percent during 2016, which was calculated on the Remain vote.

After the leave vote growth rose by 1.9 percent.

Former Treasury minister Lord O’Neill said:

��I wouldn’t have thought the UK economy would be as robust as it currently seems.”

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, as I am sure the Mr. Behr, who persists in tolling the bell of doom, would agree. He continues;

Humiliation corrodes the soul of nations. This thought occurred to me during Dunkirk, Christopher Nolan’s cinematic re-enactment of the 1940 evacuation of British soldiers from fallen France. It was a disorderly retreat following a defeat: “a colossal military disaster”, said Churchill. Yet Dunkirk spirit became an emblem of national character – a metaphor for plucky survival against insuperable odds, and a benchmark for resilience.

Britain will be measurably smaller on the world stage. The reversal of Brexit, or its dilution into some pale simulation of the status quo, requires a plea in Brussels for more time and a fresh start. That will be hard to distinguish from a grovel.

Well, Where to begin. Mr. Behr will surely not slip beneath the waves along with the rest of us, after all- his family has land in Israel to escape to, should the worst come. His advice is to fall to our knees and repent, so I can only attribute total altruism to him- that he cares for the plight of Britons, that if only they could see the error of their ways, we would see that Neville Chamberlain was right after all.

Oh, excuse me- I forget that it is only the pro-EU glitterati who may invoke World War Two in support of their arguments.

We plebs from the council estate ought to listen to our betters when they tell us how stupid we are to want to think for ourselves. When I was on the left wing of politics I thought in a little way like these people did, though I fooled myself that class-consciousness just meant I knew better than anyone else what the working class truly needed. Instead I was a useful idiot, an early precursor to the swarms of useful idiots clogging up the place today with their socialist slogans and proclaimations of undying fealty to the European Union.

Dear Brexiters, Leavers fall into 7 categories. Which one are you?#FBPE pic.twitter.com/sMUKBXQrlQ

— Brexit Bin 🇪🇺 🇬🇧 #FBPE (@BrexitBin) January 28, 2018

What the working class need is what ever the working class choose to vote for in the democratic process until we decide to just shelve the idea of democracy all together. Sermonizing by wealthy graduates from elite schools who publish books, work for the BBC and own land in a literal ethnostate are not on that list, funnily enough. Let us finish up where we began, with Jenni Russell, who rightly said;

Nine of Northern Europe’s 10 poorest regions — including West Wales, Cornwall and Lancashire are in Britain

Yet, she wonders why the people of West Wales, Cornwall and Lancashire decided that a change from the prescribed route was in order. The only solution to Russell is more of the same. Damn your democracy. She goes on;

Britain is not an economic powerhouse waiting to be liberated. We are a country of mediocre education and limited skills, whose preening vanity has prevented us from seeing our failings. Our membership in the European Union is not a set of restraints; it is what has been propping us up. If we insist on cutting ourselves off, parts of our economy will start to die.

Dunkirk is remembered so fondly only because, in the end, Britain was on the winning side. That wasn’t down to our plucky spirit. It was because America, with its overwhelming resources, entered the war. There is no such ally waiting to rescue us now, as we start down the dangerous path of methodically shredding our links with our neighbors and friends.

What a rousing speech. Join me on the barricades, Jenni Russell. I truly know we are of one heart. We are together, for our people. On the beaches, on the landing grounds, on the streets and the hills. We shall never surrender. None of what Russell says is true, of course - except perhaps we are mediocre in education, low in skill, and vain. I would apply that for sure to every writer in this piece today, myself included, and in spades to the political elites who earn so much and say so little in service of the nation. We don't need a recitation of The Lays of Ancient Rome right now. Nor do we need sermons from the Little Red Book.

Yes, that is Parliament. Yes, That is a book by Chairman Mao.

We needed a film about Dunkirk, a message of hope and unity and sacrifice and family conducted in a way that we can all understand, from the smallest child upwards. The strokes of this film are conducted not in dialogue nor in splashes of gaudy CGI, but in marks of chalk. In the certain look in a man's eye. Not a film about defeat, but a message that says England is not lost, and will never be lost. We are glad to be reassured that our culture means something, that we stand for something. That the sacrifices of our fathers were not in vain, that the policies imposed on us that none asked for may be repealed.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

It doesn't matter that the Empire is no more, or that Britain is not the powerhouse it once was. It matters that it is Britain. Our culture and way of life that for all its many and manifest failings deserves to exist without apology to anyone, least of all jumped up writers on the internet. Doesn't being British count for anything?

“I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation...  we shall never surrender." - Sir Winston Churchill. 4th June 1940.

Now that is top drawer word-crafting. We should all take note.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine http://ift.tt/2DU92dR via IFTTT

[peaceforourtime-blog1]

Through the Looking-Glass

I started this journal one year ago today in the hopes of looking deeper into the world around us, and how it parallels to history. The first - and to this date only - post came in the wake of the Brexit referendum, and with the United States Presidential election looming. Unfortunately, after the first post, a lot changed, throughout the world and personally, and I no longer desired to write down my thoughts. I had recently decided to look back at my only post on Peace For Our Time, and realized that I was coming up on the one year anniversary of its posting. So, one year later, I have decided to look back at the broad topics I had discussed in my introduction post, and see where we stand now.

A year after Brexit, life in the United Kingdom has changed significantly. Understandably there has been economic uncertainty, as the UK has not yet left the European Union, and the markets do not know how the British economy will fare once it has fully jettisoned itself from the EU. Politically, there has been a historic shift towards the more left-wing Labour Party, spearheaded by Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn, once a Euroskeptic himself, has more recently changed his stance on Britain’s inclusion in the European Union. In a speech last June, Corbyn said “We, the Labour Party, are overwhelmingly for staying in, because we believe the European Union has brought investment, jobs and protection for workers, consumers and the environment,”[1]. Following the Brexit results, Corbyn faced harsh criticism from his own party members who believed that he did not do enough in the lead-up to the EU referendum to convince citizens to vote Remain, and it seemed as though his position as the party’s leader was at risk. Jeremy Corbyn managed to defeat Owen Smith - the only member of the party contending against him - and solidified his position as Labour leader. His victory over Owen Smith would be the prelude to a much greater challenge.

On April 18th, Prime Minister Theresa May of the Conservative Party (The Tories), called for a snap election, which May believed would result in a stronger majority for the Tories. The crux of the election was based on how to manage Brexit negotiations, but also the security of the nation. National security became a hot topic in the United Kingdom when the nation was rocked by two separate terrorist attacks in Manchester and in London. These attacks cast a spotlight over May’s cuts to police and anti-terrorism units, with former Met chief inspector Peter Kirkham calling May "criminally negligent with the safety of the public,"[2]. The damage was done, and on June 8th, British voters granted Labour its biggest victory since 1945 - gaining 30 seats in the House of Commons to give them 262 seats - and the Tories losing 13 seats, forcing them to seek support from the nationalist Democratic Unionist Party. Though Theresa May remains Prime Minister, it was a crushing blow for a party that believed the election would provide greater returns. Instead, Jeremy Corbyn’s dynamic personality and promises to strengthen public services, security, and industry energized supporters and swayed those on the fence to come out in support of the Labour Party.

Last year, the United States presidential election was heating up, with Republican nominee Donald Trump squaring off against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The populist fervor in this country grew significantly from candidates such as Donald Trump and Clinton’s main challenger in the Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders. Trump campaigned on radical reforms to the US government - claiming that, if elected, he would “drain the swamp” in Washington of lobbyists and insiders, leave NATO, and repeal all of Obama’s reforms, among other things. Trump was able to channel conservative anger at Obama’s policies, paranoia towards immigrants, refugees, and even fellow Americans into a frenzy, feeling almost like the polar opposite of Obama’s ‘HOPE’ slogan that he ran on originally in 2008. Clinton - a former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State - was seen as the “insider” in the election, which did not bode well for her campaign.

Clinton maintained a slight advantage in opinion polls in the weeks leading up to the election, even though both candidates were regarded rather negatively by Americans. Clinton’s lead would be damaged just eleven days before the election, as then-FBI Director James Comey came out and said that they had obtained additional emails pertaining to Hillary Clinton from a different case, which reignited discussions on Secretary Clinton’s private email server. On November 6th, only two days before the election, Comey came out and said that there was nothing on the emails that changed the FBI’s results from their initial Clinton investigation, but the damage had been done, and on November 8th, Donald Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States.

Though Trump lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes, the Trump campaign worked several battleground states like Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida, and Michigan harder than Clinton, and flipped them to his side, helping him to secure the Electoral votes necessary to defeat his Democratic opponent. Since becoming President, Trump has been criticized for a variety of reasons - claiming he would ‘drain the swamp’ while filling his cabinet with Washington insiders, lobbyists, and Goldman Sachs executives, reneging on his promise to reveal his tax returns after the election was over, his immigration policies, tweetstorms in which he rails against political opponents, celebrities, foreign leaders, the media, and even his own intelligence committees, firing FBI Director Comey and then threatening to reveal recordings of their conversations before Comey testified before the Senate, for taking advice from men such as Steve Bannon and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and most importantly the relationship between Trump, his cabinet, and Russia.

The details of the Trump presidency would require a separate post to get into greater detail, but what is more important is the reverberations felt in this country and around the world following Trump’s victory. In the United States, there have been significant protests from different groups - from citizens opposing Trump’s travel ban, to the scientific community, those against the proposed Healthcare plan being pushed by the GOP which stands to “increase the number of people without health insurance by 22 million by 2026,“[3], and those angry with Trump’s words inciting hate crimes across the nation.

With Trump’s victory, white nationalist groups have continued infecting sections of the internet and “redpilling” them. Websites such as Reddit’s r/The_Donald and 4chan’s /pol/ section have been havens for these groups to grow their influence and rail against a variety of boogeymen - SJWs, Islam, Communists, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, etc. Clashes between these groups have become more commonplace, and the divide in this country becomes deeper. Hate crimes have become more commonplace since Trump’s victory, with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) released a report this year describing how in 2016 there was a “57 percent increase in anti-Muslim bias incidents over 2015. This was accompanied by a 44 percent increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes in the same period,”[4]. While American citizens fight an ideological battle in the streets of major cities to silence from Trump, his administration begins to cut back on education spending, the EPA, and plans to slash Medicaid spending “by $834 billion over 10 years,“[5], all in the name of Making America Great Again.

Internationally, Trump’s election became a specter to countries with their own elections coming up. In The Netherlands, far-right candidate Geert Wilders of the nationalist Party for Freedom (PVV) sought to become the next Prime Minister. With Trump’s support, Geert Wilders was eager to follow up on his victory in the US election, but failed to unseat Mark Rutte as PM. Despite the loss, Wilders and the PVV’s anti-Islam, anti-immigration, Euroskeptic stance resonated with Dutch voters, as they gained five seats from the election and will still be a challenger to Rutte’s majority in the future.

In France, Marine Le Pen, daughter of National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, also sought to ride the wave of populism and right-wing anger from Trump’s victory and become President of France. Marine had changed the face of the National Front, which was once seen as too radical, and made it more “friendly” to French voters. Le Pen had the backing of both Trump and Russia, who saw her hard stance on the refugee crisis as a way of stemming the perceived tides of violence and terrorism, but ultimately could not defeat the young, charismatic Emmanuel Macron, a centrist banker who formed his own party - En Marche! and brought a message of hope and unification. Macron is seen by the far-right as a radical who will open up the borders to more refugees and further destroy the fabric of French society, while some on the left see Macron as someone who will not uphold progressive policies and will be more on the side of corporate interests. While Macron has criticisms from both sides, his victory was another blow to the far-right populist movements growing around Europe.

We have gazed into the looking-glass and seen a world changed by far-right nationalism, populism, and extremism. White nationalist sentiment continues to grow in spaces on the internet where anonymity is king, but all is not lost. The reaction from those who wish to fight back against the tides of populism and white nationalism has invigorated people who felt hopeless in the face of Trump’s victory. During the interwar period, fascism grew from the ashes of war. Nations such as Italy, Germany, Spain, and Hungary fell under its enticing power, but ultimately fascism crumbled after World War II. We live in a time where fascism’s dark specter has been revived under the code word of “nationalism” and seeks to grab hold of the people once again and entice them with nationalism, populism, and hatred of the “other”. It is up to us to ensure that fascism does not return to prominence, as it does not lead to peace. Peace for our time has once again not been achieved and that is why the fight continues.

[dontvoteconservative]

Episode 1: Miseducation, Miseducation, Miseducation

Election season is upon us. On April 18th, Prime Minister Theresa May announced that June 8th will mark the next UK General Election. Polling suggests that the Conservatives will win in a landslide, and while that may happen, the polling industry is arguably at an all time low in terms of credibility. This is the industry that gave us a narrow Milliband win, a comfortable Remain decision, a landslide Hillary Clinton victory, and ruled out the possibility of a Corbyn victory in the Labour leadership contest, all in the last two years. So you’ll forgive me if I haven’t thrown in the towel and begun crying in despair just yet. And if writing this convinces even two or three people to vote against returning the Tories to government, it will have been worth it. The Conservatives’ record in government since 2010 has been, in short, horrendous. Most reasonable people would agree that seven years is more than enough time to have made a measurable difference or at least introduced legislation that would have a positive benefit in the medium to long term. I’ll be trying to illustrate the extent of the damage done in that time by the government under David Cameron and Theresa May, as well as their intentions for the future, in various areas of policy starting with education. In short, school funding is being decimated nationwide, with 99% of students expected to be negatively affected by 2020. The Institute for Fiscal Studies described in January that the current cuts represent ‘the largest cut in school spending per pupil over a four year period since at least the early 1980s’ and ‘divert funding away from schools with the most deprived student population’ – that is to say, the poorest will be affected most. You’ll be hearing that a lot over the next few weeks. But don’t take my word for it. Check out how your old school, or your children’s school, is due to be affected by 2020 at https://www.schoolcuts.org.uk/ . I looked up my old school and the annual budget appears to be due to reduce by a little under £300,000 a year, a loss of several hundred pounds per child. My school was good but pretty typical, with several departments to my recollection being held together or elevated by the enthusiasm of specific individual teachers, who would now be asked to perform this job with materially less resources at their disposal. For schools in poorer areas, the effect will no doubt be greater still. The Conservatives’ approach to education is beyond utilitarian. They have in particular slashed funding for arts subjects such as music and drama, which have had such a profound effect on so many children, including me – even those who don’t go on to specialise in these fields learn life skills such as confidence, teamwork and the value of practice, which can last a lifetime. The former Education Secretary, Conservative MP Nicky Morgan, was criticised in 2015 for insinuating that taking arts subjects at GCSE and A Level was not as valuable as STEM (Science, Technology, English and Maths) as they could lead to fewer job opportunities.

Emphasis on including obscure functions and rote learning in written language (which is what apparently constitutes ‘good writing’) has been heavily criticised by the novelist, former Children’s Laureate and Professor of Children’s Literature at Goldsmith’s University of London Michael Rosen, among numerous other literary and educational figures. In 2015, the absurdity of this was highlighted when then-PM David Cameron was shown not to understand the terms that young children are now expected to, when he laughed off and deflected a question in the Commons from the Greens’ Caroline Lucas: “For the benefit of the house and 10 and 11-year-olds up and down the country, will the Prime Minister explain what the past progressive tense is, differentiate between a subordinating conjunctive and a coordinating conjunctive and finally will he please set out his definition of a modal verb?” For the record, I have no clue what those terms mean, and I think of myself as a man with a fairly comfortable grasp of the English language. The result of the cuts and overcomplicating of the education system? Last year, 53% of children at Key Stage 2 reached the expected standard for all three of reading, writing and mathematics – a one year drop from 2015 of a staggering 27%. That’s right, the robotic, utilitarian, pass-at-all-costs attitude has actually resulted in a markedly poorer performance. At the same time, Theresa May has been unrepentant in her support of increasing the number of grammar schools, in the face of mountains of evidence that they do nothing to enhance social mobility (as she claims they will) and actually do the opposite, entrenching existing inequality. The Institute for Fiscal Studies advised in September 2016 that among other things (emphasis mine): ·         Children from deprived backgrounds are much less likely to attend existing grammar schools than are better off children. Only about 3% of pupils at existing grammar schools are eligible for free school meals (a widely used indicator of poverty in schools), which compares with about 17% of pupils in grammar school areas as a whole. ·         About 12% of year 7 pupils in grammar schools weren’t in the state system in year 6, a figure which can rise to about 20% in some selective local authorities. This compares with around 2% in all state schools in England. This strongly suggests that a lot of children move from private schools into grammar schools at age 11. ·         Educational inequalities are still wider in today’s selective local authorities (ie those that have grammar schools). Therefore, even though we no longer have a two-tier qualification system, selective education is still found to widen educational inequalities. At PMQs recently, Theresa May accused Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn of wanting to pull up the ladder of aspiration after sending his own son to a grammar school. Firstly, this was a gross misrepresentation and borderline slanderous; Corbyn’s marriage was widely reported at the time to have broken down in part because he disagreed with his wife about sending their son to a grammar school. Secondly, it’s clear from the above evidence that it is the Conservatives that wish to pull the ladder up, for everyone not selected to these schools. At a time when kids should be being taught how to learn, how to build positive social relationships and discovering which subjects inspire in them feelings of passion that will inform their hobbies and careers for their entire lives, the Conservative party want to inspire instead nothing but desperate competition with their classmates for the prime positions, which evidence suggests will probably go to the kids of rich parents anyway. If your child doesn’t make the grade (at the age of 11!), their education afterwards will suffer, with a knock on effect to their future opportunities. It bears repeating that the results will be further entrenched inequality – if your children lose out, odds are your grandchildren will too, and so on. I think the final thing that it would be worth doing is taking a look at the Education Secretary, Justine Greening and her voting record on matters pertaining to her office over the last few years. This is the person ultimately spearheading the Government’s approach to education, so let’s see what we can expect: ·         Voted to increase tuition fee cap to £9,000 a year, saddling students with historically unprecedented levels of debt for years to come ·         Voted to turn all schools in the UK into academies before this catastrophic policy was abandoned during Nicky Morgan’s tenure in the face of massive backlash ·         Voted to end financial support for 16-19 year olds in training and future education, making this the remit of wealthier families who can afford to support their kids. Once again, entrenching social inequality. There is an anomaly in the list which you can see at the link, where it states that Greening voted for ‘more autonomy for schools’. This sounds good on paper (and took me aback briefly), but further investigation just shows that most of these relate to the ‘autonomy’ to become academies, or to ignore aspects of the curriculum demanded of most schools, including the requirement to teach PSHE at a time when it’s needed more than ever to ingrain concepts like consent, online safety, mental health and sexual health into children’s minds. In addition, Greening supported the creation of more ‘Free Schools’, which may as well be called ‘Religious Schools’ where the curriculum is chosen by religious groups – where again, the result will be a greater level of entrenchment of existing views, less exposure to children from different backgrounds and therefore differing ideas. It essentially makes schools into ghettos, as warned by the National Union of Teachers when they advised that Free Schools would ‘fuel social segregation’. This is the aim of the party that never stops claiming to be able to unite Britain. I’ll be delving into other areas of Conservative policy including health, the economy, civil rights and the perpetually hot potato of immigration over the next few weeks in the hope that I can convince even a few people to send their vote elsewhere (I actually have little preference as to where it goes, though a tactical vote deserves consideration depending on where you are). But that’s the past, present and future of education under the Conservatives. So if you have children, or think you might in the future, or know anyone who might, or were once a child yourself or know someone who was, please, don’t vote Conservative. #dvc

[fatimakhans12345]

Speech by Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel to the German Bundestag on the UK’s notification of intention to leave the EU

Speech by Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel to the German Bundestag on the UK’s notification of intention to leave the EU

Madam President,

Fellow members of this House,

Yesterday, the British Prime Minister formally notified the European Union of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw. The European Union turned 60 last weekend; I think everyone in this parliament would have wished for a different birthday present. But there’s no point in lamenting it. We respect the UK’s decision.

We should be under no illusions, however. Brexit forces everyone, including the remaining EU member states, to recalculate their onward journey. When the EU’s second-largest economy decides to leave the Union, the rest can’t go on with business as usual and pretend nothing has happened.

As it ever was, it is clear to us that the European Union is and remains the greatest project to advance civilisation of the 20th century, and even now, in the 21st century, there is no other region on the planet where people’s lives can be as free, safe and democratic as they are in the EU.

The promise of the European Union is peace and prosperity for all, and we are currently seeing how fragile peace is in parts of our continent where the EU cannot effectively exercise its peaceful influence. It is of course one of the EU’s most important tasks to finally return to fulfilling the promise of prosperity too. Nothing undermines the legitimacy of European integration more thoroughly than 40% youth unemployment in many of its southern member states.

Europe will only succeed if it remains a project of hope, rather than hopelessness, for the next generation. That is what makes the fight for more growth, more jobs, better pay and greater social security so incredibly important.

Just as it was in Ireland, France and the Netherlands, it was working class areas in particular which voted against Europe in the UK. In Britain as elsewhere, as I say, the middle classes, people on not very high incomes, no longer saw the European Union as offering any help for their future. They voted against EU membership not simply because they had fallen for the stupid propaganda of UKIP and others but because they had lost hope that their situation could improve as a result of Europe.

The Bank of England attests that the growth of real wages in the UK has been weaker over the last ten years than at any time since the middle of the 19th century – the middle of the 19th century! What is more, that relatively weak growth in wages has been coupled with varied and often extremely unfair distribution of real-wage growth within the country. Specifically, at a time when wealth has been accumulating on an already obscene scale in, for example, the City, large swathes of British society have been excluded from the promise of prosperity.

If we want to prevent frustration outweighing hope for their own future among the people of the EU member states, we primarily need to see to it that life, income and social conditions in Europe improve for everyone again.

This is important in my view, because we have more to think about in Europe today than our future relationship with the United Kingdom. People’s faith in the European Union has been damaged not only by Brexit but by the many other crises of the recent past. With the economic difficulties facing Mediterranean countries, the need to deal with refugees, the lack of security and pessimism, the international community seems more fragile than ever.

The European project has hardly ever known such severe antipathy from populists dangling easy solutions who want to reduce or even demolish Europe. The message from Rome at the weekend was therefore more than just good news. It contained a long-awaited confirmation of commitment to a stronger socially minded Europe.

Don’t misunderstand me; I am not naive. I don’t think that message alone changes everything straight away. It is, however, an initial sign that the other 27 member states are ready for a change of paradigm and want to move the internal market from a Europe based purely on competition towards more of a social market economy. There is a long way to go before we get there, but the change of direction has finally started.

There is really great news coming out of Europe too. It’s astonishing: in almost every country of Europe, according to surveys, older people are currently the most likely to find the EU bad. That was different when the European Union was founded. Back then, the older, parental generation – those who had lost their sons and daughters in the war, whose children had died, been murdered or suffered injuries – they knew after the war that they never wanted to live through that again. They didn’t want another generation of parents to lose their children to war. Nowadays, it is the young who are defending Europe. They are standing up more and more determinedly for European cohesion. They want a strong Europe – because they know that, in a completely changing world where Asia, Latin America and Africa are growing while we shrink, they and their children will only have a voice if it is a common European voice. Even Germany, strong though it is, will not be listened to in the world of the future unless our voice is a European voice.

The people demonstrating the strong “Pulse of Europe” in our city squares every Sunday are stronger than all the crude anti-Europeans on the far right and left. I would add that those demonstrators showing the pulse of Europe are our strongest allies.

Great Britain was part of and an important player in this great community for decades. Shared history with us Germans – which has not been easy and often been painful – is a bond. Today, we are partners in a peaceful Europe with common interests and values. Innumerable Germans are studying and working in the UK. Young Brits are living among us, enlivening our cultural scene, running businesses and founding start-ups. I believe we have to ensure that the friendship which has grown between the people of our countries is not jeopardised by the upcoming negotiations in spite of all the Brexit-related disagreements. We have to stay friends. That wish may not always be realistic when it comes to separations at a private level. But I think it summarises well what our objective should be. We should stay friends – maybe apart from when we are on the football pitch.

The Brexit negotiations with the UK, which the European Union will conduct on our behalf, are not going to be easy. I’m sure some of you know the saying that things will get tough before they get easier again. That applies to these talks. They will be difficult at first, before they once again become easier. However wrong the UK’s departure from the EU is, and however much it will do more harm to the United Kingdom than to us in the end, as I believe it will (and there can be no doubt that it will harm us too) – we nonetheless have no interest in conducting the negotiations in such a way as to end up with a completely ruined or hostile relationship.

I will add that, for the German Government, it is clear that the most important condition in the Brexit negotiations is that they must protect the interests of the citizens of the 27 remaining member states, the member states’ cohesion as well as economic, social and political interests, and the interests of the EU institutions. There will be no British rebate on any of that.

A lot of detailed work is going to be required. Nevertheless, we should go into the Brexit process with self-confidence and ensure that it does no harm to the 27 remaining member states.

We need clear guidelines to ensure this. As I see it, there are four things we need to consider.

Firstly, we will always have a special relationship with the United Kingdom, not least because of the significance of our collaboration on foreign affairs, on combating crime and terrorism, on research and development and particularly on security concerns.

Secondly, Brexit has generated a great sense of uncertainty not only for our economy but primarily for the more than 3 million EU citizens living in the UK, including 300,000 Germans. We will therefore have to see to it early on that Brexit, as far as possible, does not leave them disadvantaged. That is why EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has rightly made his motto, “Citizens first!” Important though economic relations are, the first priority must be to safeguard the legal status and interests of European citizens in Britain.

We also need to safeguard the funding of EU programmes, such as the European Social Fund and Commission President Juncker’s investment plan. We expect the UK to keep the commitments it has made on that score.

Thirdly, it is clear that partnership outside the EU, such as the UK  is seeking, must necessary be less than EU membership.

A free trade agreement, however extensive and innovative it may be, is perforce less trade-friendly than the unencumbered internal market. As we have kept reiterating, the internal market is not an à-la-carte menu; its four freedoms are indivisible, and the free movement of people, which makes Europe what it is, is part of that. London understands that.

Fourthly, our British partners must realise that the closer our partnership is to be, the more shared rules we will need. This means common standards not only for competition, benefits and workers’ rights but also for other areas such as the environment and data protection.

What happens next, ladies and gentlemen? To start with, we need to establish the parameters of the negotiations. We will do that with the guidelines from the European Council. And incidentally, the Brexit process is an EU-only affair. The subsequent process to negotiate the future relationship will centre around a mixed agreement, which will require ratification from the German Bundestag and Bundesrat.

Nonetheless, in my view, although we are not directly involved in the Brexit negotiations, we certainly do have an interest – as I said yesterday in committee – in cooperating closely with one another, in keeping you informed at all times and in coming to you whenever you deem it necessary. Even though it may not, as I say, be directly related to the mixed agreement, I feel it is appropriate to keep the Bundestag as closely involved in these negotiations as possible.

The 27 will now agree on a negotiating mandate and presumably begin the actual negotiations at the end of May. They will start with the key issues of the UK’s departure and then, based on what Brexit is going to look like, talk about the future agreement with the UK.

We need to pick up the ideas we discussed in Rome, take them further and put them into practice. We don’t need more Europe in all areas, but we do need a better and more socially minded Europe in many: a Europe that delivers on its promise of prosperity and its promise of peace, secure borders and protection for its people; a Europe where everyone can play their part according to their abilities; a Europe of solidarity and collaboration; a Europe where we don’t have a few big countries speaking for everyone else but where we all have the same worth and treat one another as equals, and a Europe that acts jointly and doesn’t let itself be split up by others.

To be frank, my greatest worry is that this splitting up of Europe has already begun. I find it flattering when China, the United States and Russia keep wanting to negotiate with Germany – but there is a danger in it too. It is a trap we mustn’t fall into. We need to make it clear at all times that yes, we are happy to talk, and we have a duty to foster stability and a responsibility to Europe, but it is ultimately not enough to talk to Germany; everyone here is worth the same. Europe has far more small countries than large ones.

We therefore don’t want to give anyone the impression that they are being sidelined. As important as the Franco-German tandem is, it is ultimately not enough. The smaller member states in particular need to know that we see them as equal partners, on an equal footing, and that we want to ensure that everyone around the world deals with Europe, not just with parts of Europe. I believe that this is extremely important.

Let me say one last thing. This Europe is perhaps going to take a little courage, no doubt about that. A few weeks ago, I was in the Clock Room at the French Foreign Ministry, where Robert Schuman held his famous speech. I stood there and thought, “My God, what brave men and women they must have been!” So soon after the end of the Second World War – and it was very soon afterwards –  they invited Germany to sit at the table of Europe’s civilised nations: the country that had pillaged and murdered its way through Europe. I do not think that the people of Luxembourg, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy or anywhere else responded with nothing but approval and applause when their political leaders said, “Come on, let’s invite the Germans.” I think there was a lot of criticism. But they had the courage to go ahead with the plan all the same.

I believe we need to have courage today as well, though I suspect it won’t take as much courage as the politicians needed back in the day. When we see what is possible and we know where we want to go, then I think we will be able to tap into the requisite courage – and then we will not need to fear that Europe is in any danger.

Thank you very much.

from UK & Germany http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Infoservice/Presse/Reden/2017/170330-BM-BT-Brexit.html?nn=479796

[labourpress]

John McDonnell speech to Labour New Economics Conference in Newcastle

*** CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY***

John McDonnell – speech to Labour New Economics Conference, Newcastle – Saturday 18 March 2017

It’s a great pleasure to be back in Newcastle again.

We’ve been up and down the country with our economic conferences.

The attendance has been incredible – there’s a huge thirst for ideas and alternatives out there.

So it is fitting that we are here in a city which the world has looked to as a guiding light for economic development.

At the heart of a region that helped lead the industrial revolution.

But a region being robbed of its greatness by Conservative economic failure. We’ve just seen the most stunning display of rank, thoughtless incompetence by any Chancellor during my twenty years in Parliament.

Philip Hammond’s authority is now shredded after just one Budget, and he tore up a manifesto commitment to do it.

Labour opposed the increase in National Insurance Contributions for the self-employed from the second he sat down.

Jeremy Corbyn made our opposition to an unfair tax rise loud and clear in his immediate Budget response.

Labour MPs and Shadow Cabinet members hammered the same message home over the next few days.

Opposition came from all sides of the House, and from business organisations like the Federation of Small Businesses, leaving the Tory leadership completely isolated.

Perhaps if the Chancellor had spent less time thinking up stale jokes, and a little more time thinking through the consequences of what he was proposing, he wouldn’t have ended up in this mess.

This is a government that never deserved its reputation for economic competence.

Their economic policies have caused real and lasting damage to this country.

Their political choice to impose austerity spending cuts on a scale not seen for generations have created untold misery.

It has meant public services cut to the bone and in some cases beyond.

It has meant a million people using food banks in the sixth richest economy in the world.

And it has meant that investment has fallen, dragging down productivity.

Our economy has become far too dependent on low-paid, insecure work as a result.

Worse yet, spending cuts have hit the places least able to cope with them.

Councils in the 10% of most deprived local authorities have cut their spending by £228 per person since 2010.

Councils in the 10% of least deprived local authorities have cut their spending only £44.

After the referendum, there was some brave talk from both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor –

Back when they were still speaking to each other –

About pressing the “reset” on fiscal policy.

And about bringing in a real industrial policy.

We’d welcome both – we need a fiscal policy that supports working people’s living standards, instead of tearing up public services.

And we need a real industrial policy to deliver the decent, secure jobs of the future, across the whole country.

Instead we’ve seen nothing but more of the same failures.

It should be very clear that they have no sense of direction, and no real vision for the future.

Brexit

That’s very clear on Brexit.

Closing your eyes and charging at a brick wall is no way to deal with complex negotiations.

Labour respects the result of the referendum, which was a clear vote to Leave – not least here in the North-East.

But I don’t think anyone voted for a Brexit deal that would trash jobs and living standards.

Or lead to the UK becoming a bargain basement corporate tax haven somewhere off the shores of Europe.

Yet that’s what the Tories have now lined up.

They don’t have a clue about where to go next.

They’re pretending no deal at all would be better than a bad deal.

They don’t seem to grasp that no deal at all would be the worst possible deal.

We’ll fight for a deal that protects jobs and livelihoods right here in the UK.

That means keeping our full, tariff-free access to the Single Market. It’s critical for the North-East.

The Tories won’t fight for that.

They’re too busy fantasising about creating “Empire 2.0”.

The reality of all this bluster is very simple.

This government is about the steady management of decline.

Of keeping those in charge today still in charge tomorrow.

And to hell with the rest.

Labour stands for something very different.

Our vision is simple: of an economy and a society that is radically fairer and more democratic, where prosperity and opportunity is shared by all, and where our wealth is sustainably secured.

It is a vision of an economy not run for the benefit of the elite, but for the people.

Government of the rich

Because the situation we're in demands action now.

We can’t wait for those in Westminster to sort themselves out.

As we’ve seen in just the last few weeks, this is a deeply dysfunctional government.

Basic tasks like assessing the economic costs of the government’s own approach to Brexit haven’t been completed.

Tax increases that should never have made it out of the Treasury wish-list end up in the Budget –

And then get reversed less than a week later.

Above all else, this is a government that thinks about the interests of a tiny metropolitan elite before it thinks of anyone else.

The former Chancellor is heading off to edit a London newspaper.

At the same time, he’s going to be advising the world’s biggest asset manager.

Working four days a month for £650,000 a year.

All whilst still being paid for his job as an MP.

How can he properly represent his constituents in Cheshire when he’s editing a newspaper for London?

Or take the current Chancellor, Philip Hammond.

It’s little wonder he and the Cabinet seemingly didn’t realise that hiking up National Insurance Contributions would hammer the self-employed.

He’s a millionaire and part of the out-of-touch Tory elite.

They don’t live in the same world as the rest of us.

Dysfunctional system, wrong ideology

But it’s about more than just this government, rotten as it is.

It’s a whole rotten system.

There’s an establishment revolving door – just look at George Osborne’s career to date.

It’s a system where too many decisions are taken too far away from the people who have to suffer them.

It means that for decades those in Whitehall have made decisions that prioritise the metropolitan elite before they think about anyone or anywhere else.

And a deep commitment to an ideology that believes public action is always wrong – but markets are always right.

We can see where that approach has got us.

The old rules for the economy have failed.

Every claim made by the people who supported those rules has turned out to be exactly wrong.

The belief that freedom for financial markets would deliver stability lead to the crash of 2008.

The belief that wealth would trickle down from the richest to the rest has led to massive inequality.

The belief that free markets alone would deliver efficiency means that workers in deregulated Britain take five days to produce what workers in Germany or France produce in four.

The old rules have given us an economy in which too much wealth is held in too few hands.

The rules have meant the economy was permanently rigged to the benefit of the elite, and against the rest of us.

The old rules have failed working people and that failure is now unavoidable.

It was this failure, I believe, that helped drive the vote to Leave.

The world is changing, and Brexit is part of that.

The old idea that states could no longer play any role in the economy is breaking down.

We’ve seen this with the steel crisis last year, where steel dumping by China has been met by concerted state action, from tariff barriers in the US to nationalisation in Italy.

Eventually the government was dragged into action, and I want to pay tribute to the campaign led by trade unions alongside Labour that forced them to act.

But it was too late for the North-East.

More than a century of investment and expertise and wealth has been almost squandered. Labour will make different choices, and take a different approach.

CCS and metals

Labour will commit to putting in place a real industrial strategy, focused on getting government to deliver for local areas where the potential is being wasted.

That’s not about looking back to past successes – although we’ll build on them. It’s about looking to the future.

It means supporting initiatives like the Teesside Collective, which will build on the natural advantages and expertise in the area to create a clean-technology industrial hub.

It’ll put this region at the cutting edge of Carbon Capture and Storage technology. It’ll be a new, clean industrial renaissance.

A pilot project would cost £110m up-front, but have the potential to deliver £31m every year in savings for government.

And on the back of the pilot, the potential for expansion is huge. The UK would become a world-leader for viable carbon capture and storage.

Alongside local leaders here, Labour will be pushing for this government to unlock that funding.

And in government we’ll back it up with a real commitment to deliver research and development spending on the clean technologies of the future.

That means committing the £50m needed to get the Metals Catapult Centre up and running.

This will build on the expertise that is already here in the region to accelerate new metal technologies towards full, commercial use.

It would mean supporting a sustainable steel industry for the future, securing jobs.

UK Steel, the Federation of Small Businesses and CBI have all written to the Chancellor and the Business Secretary to support the scheme.

The government could fund it immediately – the plans are there, it just needs the funding.

But like so much else, when it comes to the North-East, that potential is squandered by dithering and delay in Whitehall.

Stale Whitehall thinking is holding you back. Labour will crack through it.

We’ll commit to securing funding for the Metals Catapult.

Together we’ll unlock the potential of the North.

Potential everywhere

We can see where our future prosperity will come from.

The North-East is an exports success story.

It is the only English region to run a trade surplus with the rest of the world.

There are world-leading universities and research centres.

The Northern Powerhouse Independent Economic Review identified specific strengths in advanced manufacturing, the life sciences and the digital economy.

Its ports are expanding. New industries are growing up.

You can stand here and see, in ten years’ time, how we could build on these foundations to create an outward-looking, productive and fairer economy.

But that means doing much more than making the marginal changes of the past, and hoping for the best.

Or thinking first and only about those places that are already successful.

The real untapped potential of our country is not in those places where there is already growth and prosperity –

It’s the places that have been overlooked.

It’s the smaller towns and the smaller cities.

The places that for twenty or thirty years have seen other parts of the country do so much better.

It means that when we talk about rebuilding this country, we need to start with those places.

There is so much potential here currently squandered by under investment, delays and a lack of real commitment from Whitehall.

So with our mayoral candidates in Manchester and Liverpool, and councils across the north, Labour will be pushing for this government to deliver.

Sue Jeffery, our Metro Mayor candidate for Tees Valley has put forward a comprehensive plan to deliver jobs and prosperity.

We’ll be backing them every step of the way as they take on not only this government but a system that has failed the people of the North for too long.

Investment commitment

Because right now the potential of the North East is being wasted by this Conservative government.

Whilst London receives half of all transport investment made by the government, the North East receives just 1.8% of the total.

That’s almost £2,000 a head in London, but just £220 in the North East.

That funding gap has real consequences.

It means that communities can’t prosper when they could.

It means that decent jobs can’t be created that could be.

Decades of under investment by distant governments and their corporate allies turn into real failures right here, in local communities.

But after Brexit, the status quo is no longer an option.

We need a new vision for the North-East.

One that builds on its historic strengths, but looks to the future.

That recognises the potential for the North-East as a great manufacturing and trading hub in a global world.

Based on investment right here, in its people and its places, and facing the world with confidence.

Egalitarian, outward-looking, and open to the world.

The next Labour government will hand the power that Whitehall and the City have taken away back to local communities across the country.

And we’ll back this up with real commitments to invest.

Here in the North-East, where the first commercial steam railway was opened, we’ll build on its immense legacy of engineering and manufacturing success.

We’ll invest in new local rail so that every part of every county here can share in the prosperity.

Improving rolling stock. Overhauling and expanding stations.

Electrifying lines that should have been electrified years ago.

This is a £1.4bn commitment to transform the transport infrastructure of the whole region.

It can be part of unlocking an extra £20bn economic potential for the North, helping create 60,000 extra jobs.

Not my figures, but the careful estimates of Transport for the North. The economic potential here is huge.

Conclusion

But to reach that potential we need a break with the past.

As I’ve said before, Labour will oversee the greatest transfer of power to the north of England since the industrial revolution.

We’ll tear up the old rules, and break up the vested interests in Westminster and the City that stand in your way.

Where their promises have failed you, Labour will not.

We’ll help you build a new economy that works for the people, not the elites.

This new economy in the north can be somewhere that faces the rest of the world with confidence.

Where pride has been restored to every town and community.

The challenges ahead of us are immense, from Brexit to Trump to climate change.

But I believe that with confidence and clarity of purpose we can meet them.

And not just meet them: build, together, a fair and democratic society and economy.

That transformation starts here.

Ends

[gyrlversion]

Mays allies insist she WONT quit as she faces her rebellious Cabinet

Theresa May today shelved plans for a third vote on her Brexit deal, hours after a new push to force it through the Commons was quickly rebuffed by the DUP.

The Prime Minister addressed the Commons this afternoon and admitted ‘as things stand there is not sufficient support’ to hold a fresh vote on her deal, quashing speculation that it would happen tomorrow. 

Now she faces a move by rebel MPs who want to pass a motion tonight to seize control of Brexit – giving them the power to hold a vote on Wednesday letting the Commons select its favorite Brexit option in so-called ‘indicative votes’.

The PM vowed to whip against the motion proposed by Remainer rebel MP Oliver Letwin and also said she could ignore MPs’ preferences if they try to force her to adopt a softer Brexit. 

Her ministers have also again suggested that they could call a general election rather than be forced into a soft exit from the EU against their manifesto promises.

As it stands, Britain is due to leave the EU on May 22 if May’s Brexit deal passes a vote before Friday. She can still bring the vote back on Thursday, and will be hoping the prospect of a softer Brexit will bring Brexiteer MPs and the DUP onboard. If her deal is not passed before Friday, Britain is due to leave the EU on April 12.

But the Prime Minister today appeared to rule out a No Deal exit on April 12 by telling the Commons: ‘Unless this house agrees to it, No Deal will not happen.’ 

Tory MP Crispin Blunt then confronted Mrs May and said taking No Deal off the table was the ‘final torpedo’ to her deal and ‘the most shameful surrender of any British leader since Singapore in 1942’. 

MPs have already voted to rule out No Deal under any circumstances and leaks from the Cabinet suggest that ministers are still threatening to call an election if MPs try to force a soft Brexit because that option would contradict their manifesto pledges.

Mrs May made the humbling admission about her vote being axed as she faced the Commons today hours before MPs are set to vote to start taking control away of Brexit from her in a series of indicative votes tonight.

She said: ‘It is with great regret that I have to conclude that as things stand there is still not sufficient support in the House to bring back the deal for a third meaningful vote. I continue to have discussions with colleagues to build support so that we can bring the vote forward this week and guarantee Brexit’. 

Theresa May has admitted in the Commons today that No Deal will not happen without Parliament saying so – but insists that her deal is the best deal even though she doesn’t have the support to bring it back for a third time

Theresa May delivers a statement in the Commons today as she ruled out a third vote on her deal because of a lack of support

These are the seven options for Brexit MPs could vote on this week if Mrs May is forced towards a softer Brexit

WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO BREXIT THIS WEEK?  

LIKELY TO HAPPEN WEDNESDAY: MPs HOLD INDICATIVE VOTES  

The Commons is set to vote tonight to let MPs take control of Brexit. They are likely to hold a series of indicative votes on Brexit alternatives this week, most likely on Wednesday. The alternatives include a softer Brexit, a second referendum or leaving with No Deal. If one commands a majority, MPs will try to pressure Theresa May into adopting that option. But there is no binding way of making her do so.

COULD STILL HAPPEN THURSDAY: MAY HOLDS A THIRD MEANINGFUL VOTE ON HER BREXIT DEAL

May is likely to try and pass her Brexit deal a third time, after the EU offered a Brexit date of 22 May if she does so this week. The Prime Minister will use threats that MPs will take control and force a softer Brexit in an attempt to force Brexiteer rebels to finally back her. She may also offer them a date when she will quit in return for their support. Thursday is the most likely day for her vote, but there is a chance she won’t hold it if she does not believe she’ll win.

FRIDAY: MPs TAKE CONTROL?

If the PM loses a third vote on her deal, MPs and Remainer Cabinet ministers will try and force her towards a softer Brexit. Brexiteer MPs and Cabinet minister will conversely try and push her towards a No Deal exit from the EU. Minister have also claimed that they could call an election if MPs try to force them into a soft Brexit.

The seven options for Brexit Theresa May will present to MPs 

The seven Brexit options MPs may get to choose from:

:: Theresa May’s Brexit deal – The Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with Brussels that has already been rejected by MPs twice.

:: Revoke Article 50 – The cancellation of the UK’s notice to Brussels that it would leave the EU, which was given almost two years ago.

:: Second referendum – Another national poll of voters to check whether they still want to leave the EU.

:: The PM’s deal plus customs union – Labour’s Brexit plan, which would prevent Britain being able to strike its own trade deals.

:: The PM’s deal plus customs union plus single market – An even ‘softer’ Brexit plan, also known as ‘Common Market 2.0’ or ‘Norway Plus’, that would include keeping freedom of movement of people.

:: Free Trade Agreement – A trade deal between Great Britain and the EU, but excluding Northern Ireland, which would create a customs border in the Irish Sea.

:: No Deal – The country would leave the EU without striking an agreement with Brussels. 

Mrs May told the Commons that the Government will oppose Sir Oliver Letwin’s amendment tonight paving the way for indicative votes on Brexit on Wednesday. Despite May’s opposition, Letwin’s amendment is still likely to a pass after it was narrowly defeated by two votes last week.  

The indicative votes will let MPs back a range of options including a softer Brexit, a second referendum and No Deal – but in practice the Commons is likely to back a softer Brexit. 

After ruling out a third vote on her deal tomorrow, Theresa May told MPs she could not guarantee that she would commit to implementing anything they voted for in an indicative process because they could involve an ‘outcome that is un-negotiable with the EU’.

She added: ‘No government could give a blank cheque to commit to an outcome without knowing what it is. So I cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this House, but I do commit to engaging constructively with this process’.

The Prime Minister said the ‘default outcome’ remained leaving without a deal and said: ‘The alternative is to pursue a different form of Brexit or a second referendum.

‘But the bottom line remains: if the House does not approve the Withdrawal Agreement this week and is not prepared to countenance leaving without a deal, we would have to seek a longer extension.’

That would mean holding European elections and would mean ‘we will not have been able to guarantee Brexit’. 

Setting out the choices facing MPs, Theresa May said: ‘Unless this House agrees to it, no-deal will not happen.

‘No Brexit must not happen. And a slow Brexit, which extends Article 50 beyond May 22, forces the British people to take part in European elections and gives up control of any of our borders, laws, money or trade is not a Brexit that will bring the British people together.’

She said her deal was a compromise which respected both sides of the argument and ‘if this House can back it we can be out of the European Union in less than two months’.

Confirming that the Government will oppose the Letwin amendment, Mrs May she said it would set an ‘unwelcome precedent which would overturn the balance of our democratic institutions’.

We WILL call an election if MPs force us into a soft Brexit, claim ministers as rebels prepare to hold ‘indicative votes’ on their preferred option for leaving EU 

Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay leaving Downing Street with Theresa May today after cabinet, at which he is said to have again floated the idea of holding a General Election

The Government is prepared to pull the plug and force a General Election if MPs try to seize control of Brexit and make it softer than Theresa May‘s deal.

Ministers including Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay are said to have raised the prospect if Parliament votes this evening to wrestle control of the withdrawal process.

The Commons will tonight vote on a series of amendments to a Government motion that would pave the way to so-called indicative votes taking place on Wednesday.

These would allow MPs to show what sort of Brexit they wish to push through if a majority cannot be found for Mrs May’s twice-defeated deal.

The talk of forcing a General Election come despite an Opinium poll from two months ago finding that only 12 per cent of Britons would welcome another one, just two years after the last resulted in a hung Parliament.

Mr Barclay reportedly repeated at Cabinet today warnings he gave on television yesterday.

Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show he said that if the Commons took control of the order paper and votes for a different outcome, it would ‘potentially collide with fundamental commitments the Government has given in their manifesto’, though he said the vote itself would ‘not be binding’.

Explaining the scenario, he said: ‘What Parliament has done is vote for a number of contradictory things so we would need to untangle that but ultimately, at its logical conclusion, the risk of a general election increases because you potentially have a situation where Parliament is instructing the executive to do something that is counter to what it was elected to do.’

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox this morning gave a stark warning to MPs, telling BBC Radio 4’s Today: ‘I was elected, as 80 per cent of members were, to respect the referendum and leave the European Union. 

‘I was also elected on a manifesto that specifically said no single market and no customs union. 

 ‘That, for Conservative MPs who are honouring the manifesto, limits their room for manoeuvre. 

The former hardline Brexiteer turned May loyalist added that the prospect of a longer Brexit delay meaning participation in May’s European Elections would ‘unleash a torrent of pent-up frustration from voters’.    

‘I’m not sure that there are many people in the House of Commons who would fancy that particular meeting with voters,’ he said.

‘It would unleash a torrent of pent-up frustration from voters and I think that the major parties will do what they can to avoid having to fight those European elections.

‘There is nothing in politics like a little bit of self-interest to concentrate the minds, and I think, as we get towards that date, increasingly my colleagues will have to decide which of the limited options they want to follow.’

He urged MPs to back Mrs May’s deal, warning: ‘For a lot of my colleagues, I think they still believe there is a route to no deal. I have come to the conclusion some time ago that was unlikely given the House of Commons that we have.

‘I think we will see today that there is a mood in the House of Commons to stop us leaving without a deal, even if that means no Brexit. I think that is a constitutionally disastrous position.’

However she said the Government would provide time to allow MPs to debate and vote on the alternatives to her deal.

‘It will be for this House to put forward options for consideration and to determine the procedure by which they do so,’ she said.

‘However I must confess that I am sceptical about such a process of indicative votes.’ 

To jeers from the opposition, she added: ‘I think it’s important that nobody would want to support an option which contradicted the manifesto on which they stood for election to this House.

‘MPs elected to this House at this time have a duty to respect the result of the referendum that took place in 2016 and attempts to stop that result being put into place or attempts to change the result of that referendum are not respecting the voters and not respecting our democracy.’

Mrs May’s spokesman later denied No Deal was off the table. 

He said: ‘The point the PM was making is that the House has voted against No Deal and will take every opportunity to seek to stop it.’

He said Mrs May continued to want her deal to pass and that No Deal was still the default option in law.

Asked if the offer of ‘Government time’ meant accepting the rebel plan, a No 10 spokesman said it was no more than ‘fulfilling our commitment’ – meaning the Letwin amendment is still likely to pass tonight.

Mrs May caused fury among the DUP for claiming No Deal preparations had been made in Northern Ireland because it has no devolved executive.

A No 10 spokesman insisted it was ‘not a tactic’ but a ‘statement of facts’. 

The Prime Minister is keen to offer a final vote to stop MPs taking charge of the UK’s departure from the EU with Parliament ready to push Britain towards a softer Brexit or a second referendum. 

But a phone call between Mrs May and DUP leader Arlene Foster at lunchtime failed to provide the breakthrough the Prime Minister needs as she seeks to win support for her deal. 

The 10 DUP MPs have opposed the Withdrawal Agreement in the two previous votes on it and a party spokesman said the party’s ‘position remains unchanged’. 

And in a sign of strained relationship the DUP’s Westminster leader Nigel Dodds appeared to be shaking with rage as he accused Theresa May of a ‘fundamental lack of preparation’ for No Deal.

He said the Government had known for ‘considerable time’ the UK was due to leave the EU on March 29 – but still wanted an extension for a fortnight.

He said: ‘What will change in 2 weeks?’ before savaging her for agreeing to the Irish backstop ‘when it is the thing that bedevils her agreement’ and Ireland and the EU say the Northern Irish border will remain open in the event of a No Deal.

DUP MP Sammy Wilson then told Mrs May: ‘When are you going to stop using Northern Ireland as an excuse? We will not be used in any scare tactics to boost this through.’ 

This afternoon Mrs May met Jeremy Corbyn for a ‘frank and comprehensive exchange of views’ on Brexit – but the Labour leader rejected the idea that she would be willing to split her Brexit deal into two parts in bid to win their support. 

Responding to Theresa May’s latest update to the Commons, Mr Corbyn told the Commons: ‘The Government’s approach to Brexit has now become a national embarrassment.

‘After two years of failure, broken promise after broken promise, the Prime Minister finally accepted the inevitable last week and voted to extend Article 50 and went to Brussels to negotiate.

‘Last week’s summit represented another negotiating failure for the Prime Minister – her proposals were rejected and new terms were imposed on her.’

Mr Corbyn criticised last week’s ‘wholly inappropriate’ Downing Street speech by the Prime Minister, arguing she should not have tried to ‘pit the people against MPs’.

He added: ‘In a climate of heightened emotions where MPs on all sides have received threats and intimidation, I hope the Prime Minister will further reflect and think again about making what I believe to be such dangerous and irresponsible statements.

‘Every step of the way along this process the Government has refused to reach out, refused to listen and refused to find a consensus that can represent the views of the whole country, not just the Conservative Party.’

Brexiteer MPs including Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg could still back Mrs May’s deal but have indicated she would have to promise to quit afterwards to secure their backing.  

Today the Prime Minister faced her fractured Cabinet days after they tried to oust her in a failed coup that was sunk within 24 hours this weekend. 

She told ministers she wanted to hold another vote on her deal – but despite rumours about her future no ministers mentioned the prospect of her resignation.

Describing the two-hour meeting her official spokesman said: ‘There was a determination at Cabinet to do whatever it takes to get a deal so the UK can leave as soon as possible. There is a sense from the PM and Cabinet to get on with this.’ 

MPs are holding a vote tonight scheduling so-called indicative votes for Wednesday. Under these plan MPs would vote on their favoured Brexit option, which is likely to be a softer Brexit, and try to force the PM to adopt it.

May could also use the prospect of a softer Brexit as leverage to compel Brexiteer MPs to back her deal before Friday and secure Britain’s exit from the EU on May 22.   

Under the terms of the Brexit delay offered by Brussels on Thursday, Britain will leave the EU on May 22 if the PM wins a vote on her deal and April 12 if she does not. 

The April 12 deadline raises the prospect of a No Deal Brexit or another lengthy delay to Brexit that would see the UK participate in EU elections. The government also again raised the prospect that Theresa May could call a general election if MPs try to force her into a softer Brexit that contradicts her manifesto promises. 

At the weekend Brexiteers confronted the PM in an attempt to get her to agree a departure date in return for their backing of her deal, and Boris Johnson wrote today that PM had ‘bottled’ Brexit by not leaving without a deal on Friday.

Cabinet ministers also tried to oust her and replace her with a ‘caretaker PM’ – but the plot fell apart when their apparent candidates David Liddington and Michael Gove both said they did not want the job.  

If Mrs May’s deal fails for a third time, she is expected agree to a series of votes on the seven Brexit options MPs have to choose from: The PM’s deal, No Deal, a second referendum, Labour’s preferred customs union deal, a Norway-plus EEA deal, a Canada-plus free trade deal or revoking Article 50 and staying in the EU.  

Brexiteers accused her of ‘declaring war’ because the series of votes would give control to Parliament, where the majority of MPs are remainers who want the softest possible Brexit or no Brexit at all. 

Today International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said claims that the Brexit deal would be agreed by MPs if Theresa May pledged to quit is a ‘supposition’.

He said: ‘It’s simply not enough to say that if we throw the Prime Minister overboard things will be alright because it really won’t change anything’.  

Dr Fox said the threat of fighting European elections after failing to deliver Brexit could convince them to back Mrs May’s deal, because MPs act out of ‘self-interest’.

He said: ‘There is a hard deadline coming up, which is the 11th of April. If we have not decided by then to leave with a deal then we will have to pass the legislation for Britain to fight in the European elections in May. I’m not sure there are many people in the House of Commons who fancy that particular meeting with voters. I think it would unleash a torrent of pent up frustration from voters and the major parties will do what they can to avoid fighting those elections. There’s nothing in politics like a bit of self-interest to concentrate the minds’.     

Dr Fox today insisted that Mrs May was respected by the public, despite calls for her to go from her own party.

‘What I was finding from real voters was people spontaneously saying ‘I don’t understand how Theresa May puts up with the pressure, she is a great public servant, her resilience is amazing’,’ Dr Fox told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

‘There seems to me to be a bigger disconnect now between Westminster and what is happening out in the country than ever before.’

He said Tory Eurosceptics had to accept that MPs would block a no-deal Brexit.

‘For a lot of my colleagues, I think they still believe there is a route to no deal. I have come to the conclusion some time ago that was unlikely given the House of Commons that we have.

‘I think we will see today that there is a mood in the House of Commons to stop us leaving without a deal, even if that means no Brexit. I think that is a constitutionally disastrous position.’ 

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox leaves a crunch cabinet meeting today after saying that getting rid of the PM would not guarantee that her deal would go through 

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Elizabeth Truss, Secretary of State for Defence Gavin Williamson and Secretary of State for Wales Alun Cairn(left to right) leave Downing Street

Mrs May’s cabinet is split because of a rift between Brexiteers including Penny Mordaunt and Remainers such as Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd, pictured arriving for today’s cabinet meeting

Tory backbencher Nigel Evans, a joint executive secretary of the influential Conservative 1922 Committee, said Theresa May should set out her plans to quit in order to get her Brexit deal through.

‘Clearly a number of people do not want the Prime Minister anywhere near the next phase of negotiations, which is the future trading relationship between ourselves and the EU,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today.

He said there should be an ‘orderly’ process to replace the Prime Minister, with a full leadership contest rather than an interim successor.

Theresa May’s former Downing Street director of communications, Katie Perrior, said it was time for the Prime Minister to announce her departure date to get her Brexit deal through.

Writing in The Times Red Box, Ms Perrior said: ‘Maybe it’s time to stop finding scapegoats and admit that Theresa May and her lack of leadership has made a bad situation worse.

‘With great sadness, it’s time for her to swap her departure date in return for the deal. It’s the least she can do.’

Brexiteer Andrew Bridgen told Sky News that Theresa May ‘certainly doesn’t have the confidence of the Cabinet, and of Conservative members across the country’.

He added: ‘We are not going to get Brexit through this Parliament. This Parliament is packed out with MPs who really back Remain.

‘The only way we are going to get Brexit is a change of leader to someone who actually believes in Brexit and can express that to the country’.

One of Mrs May’s ministers last night said he would vote to revoke Article 50 and cancel the entire Brexit process if it became an option in Parliament.

Foreign Office minister Mark Field said that if the PM’s deal is defeated, and there are then indicative votes in the Commons, ‘I would choose to revoke Article 50’. He added on BBC Radio 4: ‘I recognise that may not be the popular option’.

At the start of another crunch week in Westminster, the Commons is due to vote on an amendment which would force a series of indicative votes on alternatives to the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement.

The European Commission has also released a warning that ‘it is increasingly likely that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union without a deal on April 12’.

In a statement, the Commission said it had completed its preparations for a possible no-deal Brexit, which it said would cause ‘significant disruption for citizens and businesses’ and ‘significant delays’ at borders.

‘In such a scenario, the UK’s relations with the EU would be governed by general international public law, including rules of the World Trade Organisation,’ said the statement released in Brussels.

‘The EU will be required to immediately apply its rules and tariffs at its borders with the UK. This includes checks and controls for customs, sanitary and phytosanitary standards and verification of compliance with EU norms.

‘Despite the considerable preparations of the member states’ customs authorities, these controls could cause significant delays at the border. UK entities would also cease to be eligible to receive EU grants and to participate in EU procurement procedures under current terms.

‘Similarly, UK citizens will no longer be citizens of the European Union. They will be subject to additional checks when crossing borders into the European Union.

‘Again, member states have made considerable preparations at ports and airports to ensure that these checks are done as efficiently as possible, but they may nevertheless cause delays.’

The seven amendments that MPs will vote on tonight

Parliament debates an amendable ‘next steps’ Government motion on the Brexit deal, which gives MPs a chance to put their favoured Brexit outcomes to a vote.  

Mrs May’s effective deputy David Lidington promised to introduce this for MPs if Mrs May failed to get her deal through by last week.

MPs have put forward seven amendments for tonight, with Speaker John Bercow expected to choose up to four of them for votes.

Letwin amendment

This cross-party plan, backed by Sir Oliver Letwin, Dominic Grieve and Hilary Benn, seeks to pave the way for a series of ‘indicative votes’ in the Commons on Wednesday, effectively taking control of the Brexit process out of the hands of the Government.

Cooper amendment

Labour MP Yvette Cooper’s amendment rejects a no-deal Brexit and demands the Government sets out by the end of Thursday how it will ensure the UK does not crash out of the EU on April 12 without a Withdrawal Agreement, if the PM’s plan is rejected again. Tory MPs Sir Oliver Letwin and Dame Caroline Spelman are among the signatories.

Labour amendment

Jeremy Corbyn’s party has tabled an amendment instructing the Government to provide parliamentary time this week so MPs can find a majority for an alternative to the PM’s Brexit plan. They say the other options could include Labour’s plan, a customs union, second referendum or a Common Market 2.0.

TIGs amendment

The Independent Group are joined by Liberal Democrats and some Labour MPs in calling for the Prime Minister to immediately make the ‘necessary preparations’ for a second referendum.

Beckett amendment

Labour MP Dame Margaret Beckett’s amendment seeks to make the Government move a motion on whether the Commons approves the UK leaving without a deal and on whether there should be an extension to Article 50 if Britain comes within seven days of crashing out.

Quince amendment

Backed by prominent Brexiteers from across the House, Tory Will Quince’s amendment simply seeks to reaffirm Parliament’s ‘commitment to honour the result of the referendum that the UK should leave the European Union’.

Liberal Democrats amendment

With support from members of the Independent Group, the Lib Dem amendment calls for a two-year extension to Article 50 to hold a second referendum on whether to leave the EU under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement or to stay a member.

Sajid Javid arrives at No 10 Downing Street followed by Minister of State for Immigration Caroline Nokes 

Education Secretary Damian Hinds and was followed into Downing Street by Business Secretary Greg Clark, one of the remainer ministers in the cabinet

Secretary of State for Housing James Brokenshire and Conservative Party Chairman Brandon Lewis were driven to today’s cabinet meeting

The day started badly for May when Boris Johnson said she had ‘bottled it completely’ over Brexit after meeting her for crisis talks with fellow Brexiteers at Chequers on Sunday.

During a three-hour meeting, Brexiteers Iain Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees-Mogg warned the Prime Minister she must set out a timetable for her departure to get her deal through the Commons.

Mrs May dug in, warning Eurosceptics including Mr Johnson and David Davis that if they refused to get behind her plan, MPs would force through a ‘soft’ Brexit.

But Mr Johnson, writing in The Telegraph, said the government had a ‘chickened out’ and ‘bottled it completely’ over Brexit.

He said: ‘We are not leaving this Friday because the government has chickened out. For almost three years every Tory MP has chirruped the mantra that no deal would be better than a bad deal.

‘I believed that the government was sincere in making that claim, and I believed that the PM genuinely had the 29th of March inscribed in her heart.

‘I am afraid I misread the government. We have blinked. We have baulked. We have bottled it completely.’

He urges Mrs May to ‘channel the spirit of Moses’ and ‘tell Brussels’ to ‘let my people go.’  

Jacob Rees Mogg and his son arrive at Chequers for a meeting with the Prime Minister

Iain Duncan Smith arrived in a flashy soft-topped Morgan sports car at Chequers, while Dominic Raab opted for a more conventional vehicle

Former Brexit minister Steve Baker, an ultra-Brexiteer, made the short drive from his High Wycombe constituency, with David Lidington driving over from Aylesbury, having earlier denied having any desire to replace Mrs May

Conservative Party chairman Brandon Lewis was driven into Chequers, as was Environment Secretary Michael Gove, who earlier said he was fully behind the Prime Minister

The DUP pours cold water on May’s hopes for third vote on her Brexit deal despite Boris Johnson’s hint that he COULD back it if she agrees to quit 

The DUP insisted its position on the Brexit deal was ‘unchanged’ today after last-minute talks between Theresa May and Arlene Foster.

The Prime Minister is desperate an 11th hour U-turn from the DUP to support the deal at a third vote in a bid to finally win Commons approval.

But a phone call after today’s Cabinet yielded no progress. A DUP spokesman said the party’s ‘position is unchanged’.  

Mrs May has said she will only call a third vote if she thinks she can win.  

The last hope is to win over Tory Brexiteer rebels. Boris Johnson appeared to hint today his price is the PM’s resignation – but even that may not bring back enough support.

The PM could also try to win over Labour MPs by promising them a say on the negotiating terms for the future trade deal. This compromise would anger Tory Brexiteers – potentially undermining her other tactics.

Theresa May faces a final scramble to save her deal today knowing she must win over her DUP allies to stand any chance of victory

Mrs May must overturn the 149-vote loss on March 12 this week to meet an agreement with the EU that Brexit should happen on May 22.

But failure to win new support risks pushing the margin back out toward the record-breaking 230-vote defeat from January.

Mr Johnson appeared to outline his price for support in his Telegraph column today.

He said: ‘Can we really go on with a negotiating team that has so resoundingly failed?’

He said if Mrs May cannot deliver ‘convincing proofs’ of how the next phase of the negotiations will be different from the last, he said she should ‘drop the deal, and go back to Brussels, and simply set out the terms that so many on both sides’.

Outlining his plan – rejected repeatedly by Brussels – Mr Johnson said: ‘Extend the implementation period to the end of 2021 if necessary; use it to negotiate a free trade deal; pay the fee; but come out of the EU now – without the backstop.

‘It is time for the PM to channel the spirit of Moses in Exodus, and say to Pharaoh in Brussels – let my people go.’

The Prime Minister’s hopes appear bleak after DUP Westminster leader Nigel Dodds (file) launched a fierce attack on her on Friday

Mrs May’s other hope is to win over Tory Brexiteer rebels. Boris Johnson (pictured yesterday leaving Chequers) appeared to hint today his price is the PM’s resignation – but even that may not bring back enough support

On Friday, Mr Dodds accused Mrs May of ‘capitulating’ to the EU. 

In a signal his party were not shifting toward the deal, he said: ‘Nothing has changed as far as the Withdrawal Agreement is concerned.

‘We will not accept any deal which poses a long-term risk to the constitutional and economic integrity of the United Kingdom.’ 

Mrs May’s hopes of winning them over appear to turn on a so-called ‘Stormont Lock. This is a mechanism which would give the Northern Ireland Assembly a veto over any future divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Government has already promised to give the Northern Ireland institutions a strong role in the operation of the backstop. Persuading the DUP will require the idea to spelt out in practice.

  The Prime Minister is understood to have raised concerns privately that she does not want to set out a departure date unless it becomes clear that doing so will be enough to get her deal passed.

Calls for a public inquiry

A public inquiry could be held into Brexit, it has emerged.

Civil servants, MPs, peers and business figures want a probe into the initial decision to call a referendum, the red lines drawn up by Theresa May and Britain’s negotiating strategy.

Former civil service head Bob Kerslake called Brexit ‘the biggest humiliation since Suez’. The cross-party peer added: ‘We do need to understand how on Earth we ended up where we have and it probably needs to go back to the decisions around holding a referendum and the way the question was framed.’

A senior Tory peer cited the inquiry into the Iraq war led by Sir John Chilcot, saying: ‘We want our Chilcot.’

  A source said: ‘It’s a bit of chicken and egg. She does not want to come out and say ‘OK I will do it’ and then it not go through. She needs to know the numbers are there.’

But Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson, writing on Twitter last night, has claimed there are rumours abound that Brexiteers at Chequers have got the PM’s agreement to resign in return for their support for her deal. 

The meeting came hours after her de facto deputy David Lidington and Environment Secretary Michael Gove were forced to deny claims that ministers planned to install one of them as a caretaker prime minister in a Cabinet coup. 

Yesterday afternoon Mrs May invited the pair to her country residence along with a group including former ministers and some of her staunchest Brexit critics.

She convened the meeting to discuss whether there was enough support from MPs to put her Withdrawal Agreement before the Commons for a third time this week.

Those present included former Brexit ministers Steve Baker and Dominic Raab, who both quit over her deal. Chief Whip Julian Smith, Tory chairman Brandon Lewis, Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay, Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt and Mrs May’s former deputy Damian Green also attended, along with Jacob Rees-Mogg, who brought his son, Peter, 12.

The Brexiteers present said there was no breakthrough at the meeting. A source added: ‘It was the usual stuff, she gave the same old pitch as she has been giving about back me or it is going to be a softer Brexit. 

‘IDS and Jacob both said she should set out a timeline to go, but she gave no indication that she would. It was the same old lines. Sadly nothing has changed.’

The Brexiteers are said to have ‘left disheartened by the lack of any effort to change course or to reach out in any way to try and get this deal through’.

What happens next in the battle for control of Brexit? How MPs will try to seize control of Britain’s departure from the EU this week 

This is your guide to what happens next:   

Will May be forced out by her Cabinet? 

The immediate risk appears to have receded since rumours of a Cabinet coup spread like wildfire over the weekend. There is no procedural way to remove her – but a public withdrawal of political support would finish the PM.

What was agreed at the EU summit last week?  

 EU leaders have approved a two-part delay to Brexit following late night talks.

Brexit is set to be delayed until April 12 whatever happens next week, giving the UK an extra two weeks.

If MPs pass the Brexit deal before then, the extension will run until May 22.

 What does it mean? 

The immediate risk of the UK leaving without a deal on Friday, March 29, is effectively over – subject to a change in UK law but this should be a formality.

Brexiteers will still believe they can secure a No Deal exit on April 12 while Remainers will see it as an opportunity to lock in a much longer delay. 

When will MPs next have a say? 

Tonight. There is currently due to be another debate on Brexit ‘next steps’ that will mean a series of votes from 10pm. The debate has to be held by law because of the second defeat of the deal last week. 

This is not the third vote on the deal but a repeat of the debates held on January 29, February 14 and February 28 after the deal was crushed the first time.

There will likely be votes on several proposals including a second referendum, revoking Article 50 and a soft Brexit. There will be another attempt by some MPs to seize control of the Commons agenda to try and change the law to shape Brexit.

Will there be a third vote on the deal and when will it be? 

Mrs May says yes and says it will be this week. Most currently expect it to be held tomorrow night but this is not fixed. Thursday is also under consideration.

Can she win? 

It looks unlikely. The prospect of No Deal on April 12 will encourage Brexiteers they should vote down the deal a third time. 

There is currently little sign the DUP are being won over by a political offensive behind the scenes. 

Mrs May also alienated Labour MPs with her angry speech on Wednesday night.  

It seems possible she could end up losing the third vote by a bigger margin than the 149 votes she lost the second one.

What if she does win? 

If the PM manages a great escape, then Britain will be on track to leave on May 22. The Government will move quickly to get the necessary laws in place.

What if she loses?  

The EU has made clear that if the deal goes down a third time, Britain must come back with a plan in time for the new deadline of April 12.

Most urgently, a decision will have to be made on whether the UK takes part in European Parliament elections on May 23. If it does not, there will be No Deal – and Mrs May says electing MEPs would be the wrong thing to do.

However, there is still a majority of MPs in Parliament against No Deal so the choice could be taken away from the PM. 

If elections are agreed in the UK there will probably be a new EU summit around April 10 to approve a much longer extension – perhaps to the end of 2019 or even longer.

The UK will have to have a new plan for what to do with the time as Brussels has made clear it cannot keep going over the same deal.

Will MPs vote on other options? 

Probably. Tonight’s vote could setup a full-blown ‘indicative vote’ that would set all the options against each other. A defeated Government could stage the same procedure.

There are claims the Government would put up seven options: Mrs May’s Deal, No Deal, Revoking Article 50, a Second Referendum, a Customs Union soft Brexit deal, an even softer Customs Union and Single Market deal, and a Canada-style Free Trade Agreement deal. 

The idea would be to find what kind of Brexit might be supported by Parliament or if there is none, see if there is support for a new public vote. 

Will May resign? 

Nobody knows. No Prime Minister has ever soaked up so much humiliation and carried on and yet Mrs May is still in Downing Street.

She suggested last week she would not accept a long delay beyond June 30, seen by many as a hint she would resign if it had to happen.

A third defeat for the deal this week would also provoke huge calls for her to resign.

A move to No Deal could also see some Tory MPs join with Labour to force the Government out with a vote of no confidence.  

What happens to Brexit if May goes or the Government collapses? 

It is hard to know. Even with a tweak to the law to change the date, Brexit will still happen with No Deal on April 12 if other choices keep being rejected. 

But we also know there is a majority of MPs against a No Deal Brexit. It is possible there are enough Tory MPs prepared to remove the Government to stop No Deal by installing a Corbyn government ahead of a snap election. 

Only the Government can bring forward the necessary change in the law to change the Brexit date. 

What is Labour’s position? 

Labour says no deal must be stopped – but also says it will not vote for Mrs May’s deal.

It wanted a three month delay to renegotiate the political declaration on the final UK-EU relationship but this would require it form a Government more or less immediately. 

Were it to do so, it would try pass the divorce deal attached to a new political declaration that said the final relationship would be based on a permanent customs union. 

It has passed no comment on the actual proposed delay. 

Will there have to be a new election or a referendum? 

This falls into the anything is possible category. Parliament is deadlocked and has been for months – which suggests an election is necessary. 

And yet the governing Tory party clearly has little idea what it would put to the country or who would lead it into an election. An election can be forced without the consent of the Tories but it is very difficult. 

Similarly, it is far from clear there are the votes for a referendum in the Commons. The idea was crushed last week because Labour did not vote for it.

Will Brexit ever happen? 

Almost three years after the referendum, this depends entirely on your view of events. The law says it will but there are enough MPs to at least change the date if given the chance to do so.

It could now happen on April 12 or May 22. Or it could be delayed much further. 

On his way to the meeting, Mr Johnson drove on a public road without his seatbelt on – an offence that can incur a £500 fine.

A witness said the former Foreign Secretary was not wearing it while on Missenden Road, which leads to Chequers in Buckinghamshire. 

Yesterday, Oliver Letwin also acknowledged that the Commons may not unite around any of the available options in Wednesday’s indicative votes.

Sir Oliver acknowledged that any votes would be advisory rather than binding on the Government and it may take several rounds of voting before a majority is found for any of the options – if one can be found at all.

He said Mrs May ‘hasn’t been able to get a majority and we don’t know what she could get a majority for, so once we find that out there is a way forward, in principle, and then the next thing would be for the Prime Minister to take that forward and for the Government to implement it’.

But he told BBC Radio 4’s Today: ‘None of us know whether it will work.’

Asked if it was possible that all options were rejected, he said: ‘Of course I have to accept that. I can’t predict… what Parliament will do.’ 

But Mr Hammond, the Chancellor, said it was right that the Commons should have its say on options such as a second referendum or staying in the customs union. The Cabinet is deeply divided between ministers who want a No Deal Brexit if Mrs May’s plan is rejected and those who believe it should be avoided by moving towards a ‘soft’ Brexit or a long delay. 

Mr Hammond suggested yesterday that he would be open to a softer Brexit or even another referendum.

Speaking on the Sophy Ridge On Sunday programme on Sky News, he said: ‘We’ve got to address the question of what type of Brexit is acceptable to Parliament, what type of way forward Parliament can agree on so we can avoid what would be an economic catastrophe of a No Deal exit and also what would be a very big challenge to confidence in our political system if we didn’t exit at all. The Prime Minister’s deal is my preferred way forward, but I’m realistic that we may not be able to get a majority for the Prime Minister’s deal and if that is the case then Parliament will have to decide not just what it’s against, but what it is for.’

Asked if he could back the country remaining in a customs union, Mr Hammond said he would not want No Deal or to revoke Article 50, the formal process for leaving the EU.

But he added: ‘Beyond that, I want to see a compromise and the essence of compromise is that nobody gets everything they want.

‘I’m not sure there’s a majority in Parliament for a second referendum but it’s a perfectly coherent proposition. It deserves to be considered.’ 

Tory MP Nick Boles, who has led calls for a Norway-style Brexit with Britain in the common market with a customs arrangement to ensure frictionless trade, dismissed any early election. He tweeted: ‘This is nonsense. The PM cannot call a general election whenever she feels. She would need the backing of two-thirds of MPs. No way most Tory MPs are voting for an early election.’

But some Eurosceptics supported holding a general election to prevent a softer Brexit. Tory MP Simon Clarke said: ‘Better that, surely, than being reduced to the transmission mechanism for policies that are not our own and which fly in the face of promises on which we were elected.

‘The Opposition is the least popular in living memory. I would far rather take my chances with the public having been thwarted by a Remain Parliament than having capitulated to it.’ 

Yesterday, it was claimed that ministers planned to call on Mrs May to step aside in favour of a caretaker prime minister – either Mr Lidington or Mr Gove – at a Cabinet meeting this morning.

But the mooted coup appeared to have fizzled out last night after critics warned that both Tory MPs and the party’s membership would not accept the Cabinet picking a leader without a contest.

One minister said: ‘It couldn’t work because it is insane. The voluntary party would not live with it. The idea that you could get Cabinet to unite around one candidate would be surprising and the idea that you could get the parliamentary party to rally behind one person is insane. It will not happen.’

Mr Gove and Mr Lidington appeared on television yesterday to restate their backing for the Prime Minister ahead of the Chequers meeting.

The Environment Secretary said it was ‘not the time to change the captain of the ship’, adding: ‘We absolutely need to focus on making sure we get the maximum possible support for the Prime Minister and her deal.’

Mr Lidington said Mrs May was doing ‘a fantastic job’, adding: ‘I don’t think I’ve any wish to take over from the PM. One thing working closely with the Prime Minister does is cure you of any shred of ambition to want to do that task. I have absolute admiration for the way she is going about it.’

Yesterday, Chancellor Philip Hammond warned those urging Mrs May to go that it wouldn’t ‘solve the problem’. ‘To be talking about changing the players on the board, frankly, is self-indulgent at this time,’ he told Sky News’s Sophy Ridge On Sunday.

It came after Tory MP George Freeman, who had called for Mrs May to be replaced by Mr Gove, said yesterday it was ‘all over for the PM’, tweeting: ‘She’s done her best. But across the country you can see the anger.’

He was rebuked by Tory minister Justin Tomlinson, who replied: ‘You should get off Twitter and knock on doors. The public are frustrated at factions who refuse to compromise. They sympathise that the PM is stuck in the middle.’

Eurosceptics on the backbenches also warned they would resist any move to put someone in place without them having a say.

Tory MP Charlie Elphicke said: ‘The idea of a Cabinet coup is appalling. If there is to be a leadership change it must be done by MPs and the membership in accordance with the rules – not by a Cabinet stitch-up.’

A second referendum has ‘never been a preference’ for Labour, insists Corbyn’s allies as party splits on Brexit flare up AGAIN after ‘one million-strong’ People’s Vote march

Labour’s splits on Brexit were laid bare again today as Shami Chakrabarti (pictured today in Westminster) insisted a second referendum had ‘never been our preference’

Labour’s splits on Brexit were laid bare again today as Shami Chakrabarti insisted a second referendum had ‘never been our preference’.

The shadow attorney general and ally of Jeremy Corbyn said the idea of a public vote was ‘one of a menu of options’ but not one she backed.

Mr Corbyn snubbed a central London protest march demanding a second referendum of up to one million people on Saturday. Lady Chakrabarti said he ‘has other places to be’ when asked why he did not appear. 

In stark contrast, his deputy Tom Watson turned up and addressed the crowd from the podium. 

Lady Chakrabarti’s intervention irritated pro-referendum Labour MPs today, with Barry Sheerman insisting the party should be represented on the airwaves by an ‘elected’ politician instead of the appointed Baroness. 

Lady Chakrabarti told BBC Radio 4’s Today: ‘It has never been our preference but since last autumn it has been one of a menu of options for breaking the deadlock.

‘And if that’s what it takes to break a deadlock in Parliament then so be it.

‘I have no doubt that it will be one of a menu of options that MPs ought to be able to discuss and vote on this week.’

She said Mr Watson was ‘an elected Member of Parliament so he is allowed to be rather more enthusiastic than me’.

Asked about party leader Jeremy Corbyn’s views, she said his job was to ‘desperately try to bring people together’ from both sides of the Brexit divide.

Asked if Labour MPs would be given a free vote on the Brexit options, she said ‘we have to find a way to allow people to coalesce’.

The shadow attorney general and ally of Jeremy Corbyn (pictured  leaving home today) said the idea of a public vote was ‘one of a menu of options’ but not one she backed

In stark contrast, his deputy Tom Watson turned up and addressed the crowd from the podium (pictured) 

Lady Chakrabarti’s intervention irritated pro-referendum Labour MPs today, with Barry Sheerman insisting the party should be represented on the airwaves by an ‘elected’ politician instead of the appointed Baroness.

But she added ‘we also are a democratic party and there was a conference motion last autumn and before that there was a general election manifesto’ setting out party policy.

Addressing the crowd on Saturday, Mr Watson urged the Prime Minister to ‘let the people take control’.

‘At every turn we have been ignored,’ he said. ‘At every stage Theresa May has doubled down rather than reaching out.

‘She has made it impossible for anyone who cares about jobs, about solidarity at home and abroad, about friendship across borders and between communities to support this Brexit.’

Addressing Mrs May directly, he called on her to ‘look out [of] your window’ to see ‘this magnificent crowd today’.

He added: ‘Prime Minister, you’ve lost control of this process, you’re plunging the country into chaos, let the people take control.’

Mr Corbyn spent Saturday in Morecambe, making a speech to Labour North West activists. 

The post Mays allies insist she WONT quit as she faces her rebellious Cabinet appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress https://www.gyrlversion.net/mays-allies-insist-she-wont-quit-as-she-faces-her-rebellious-cabinet/

[gyrlversion]

Vote Leave leader Michael Gove warns rebel Tory MPs

Michael Gove today warns rebel Tory MPs they have less than 48 hours to save Brexit.

In a rallying call on the eve of tomorrow’s momentous vote, the Environment Secretary declares that ‘everyone who believes in democracy’ should get behind the Prime Minister’s deal.

Writing in the Daily Mail, he argues the agreement is the only way to heal the nation’s bitter divisions and make sure Brexit happens. 

Mr Gove, who helped lead Vote Leave, warns that leaving without a deal would not ‘honour’ the commitment made to voters ahead of the referendum.

Writing in the Daily Mail, Michael Gove argues the agreement is the only way to heal the nation’s bitter divisions and make sure Brexit happens

Andrea Leadsom, another prominent Eurosceptic, also last night issued a stark warning to rebels, saying: ‘It’s now or never.’

The Commons Leader said if Theresa May’s deal is rejected ‘it’s really clear that the next steps Parliament will take make the Brexit we want a fading reality’. 

Mrs May is expected to make a dash to Brussels this morning in a last-ditch attempt to secure changes to her deal. But sources on the Continent were yesterday playing down hopes of any meaningful concessions, saying talks could be as little as a phone call.

British officials spent the weekend locked in negotiations with their EU counterparts over their demands for alterations to the withdrawal agreement so the country cannot be trapped in the Northern Ireland backstop. 

Whitehall sources said the ‘atmosphere was grim’ with concerns that any changes may not be enough to satisfy rebel Tory MPs and the Democratic Unionist Party.

The Prime Minister has promised that if her deal is rejected for a second time tomorrow, MPs will get the chance to vote on leaving the EU without a deal or delaying Brexit beyond March 29.

Andrea Leadsom, another prominent Eurosceptic, also last night issued a stark warning to rebels, saying: ‘It’s now or never’

Senior Tory figures yesterday warned Mrs May’s position could become untenable if she is forced to seek an extension to the two-year Article 50 process.

Sources said Britain would be expected to pay another £13.5billion per year, more than the current £9billion, because the UK would lose its rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher. Even a delay of three months would add billions to the cost of the divorce payment.

The second so-called meaningful vote on the Brexit deal comes after it was rejected by a majority of 230 MPs in January, in a historic defeat for the Government. 

In a further development last night, Downing Street did not rule out amending tomorrow’s vote on the deal so it is conditional on securing extra changes from the EU before the end of this month.

Meanwhile, Philip Hammond is understood to be ready to promise billions of pounds of extra cash for the police, schools and tax cuts in his Spring Statement on Wednesday – if the deal is passed.

The Prime Minister has promised that if her deal is rejected for a second time tomorrow, MPs will get the chance to vote on leaving the EU without a deal or delaying Brexit beyond March 29

The Chancellor will release around £20billion currently ring-fenced as a contingency in case of No Deal. 

Mr Gove is pleading for Tory rebels to take a second look at the withdrawal agreement, arguing they should not ‘make our perfect Brexit the enemy of the common good’.

In his article for the Mail, he says: ‘I hope that everyone who believes in our democracy – in the importance of delivering Brexit, but also in the critical need to unite our country – will come behind the Prime Minister’s deal this week.’

He insisted that while the deal is a ‘compromise’, it ‘provides the best way of delivering an exit that can secure our country’s unity and prosperity’.

Mr Gove warns that many of the arguments made against the deal ‘don’t reflect the reality of what’s been achieved’.

‘It is not the case that this deal makes us a colony or vassal state. How could it when it gives us total control over our borders and ends our current automatic payments to the EU?’ he writes.

While admitting there were ‘aspects’ of the backstop he found ‘uncomfortable’, Mr Gove says the version ‘now agreed is very different from the arrangement the Irish Government and the EU first wanted’. 

Philip Hammond is understood to be ready to promise billions of pounds of extra cash for the police, schools and tax cuts in his Spring Statement on Wednesday – if the deal is passed

‘It places more cards in our hands than theirs. If we play them with skill we can get the final deal we want,’ he adds.

‘While it’s uncomfortable for us it’s a mistake to think it’s a bed of roses for the EU… I can’t imagine EU politicians tolerating for very long an arrangement which allows us to keep them out of our waters but sell all the fish we want to them, allows us access to their markets but restricts their citizens coming here, allows us to make our economy more competitive and ends all payments to their institutions. EU countries would want it to end.’ 

Mr Gove warns Eurosceptic rebels who believe that voting against the plan tomorrow will lead to a No Deal Brexit are likely to be disappointed.

He says: ‘Some may say that ditching this deal will allow us to leave without any compromises, but we didn’t vote in June 2016 to leave without a deal.

‘That wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped lead.’

He adds: ‘It would undoubtedly cause economic turbulence…We would get through it, of course, we’re a great and resilient country. But jobs would be lost in the short term and none of us can be blithe or blasé about the inevitable damage leaving without a deal would cause.’

Mr Gove’s warning comes after Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt told Tory MPs they risk losing Brexit altogether if they fail to back Mrs May’s deal. 

He said there was ‘wind in the sails’ of the opponents of Brexit and that it would be ‘devastating’ for the Tories if they failed to deliver on their commitment to take Britain out of the EU. 

MICHAEL GOVE: Only by backing the Prime Minister’s deal with the EU will ensure Brexit happens and heal the bitter divides across the country

By Michael Gove  

The great Victorian Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once lamented that Britain had become ‘two nations’ between whom ‘there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets’.

Disraeli was writing of the gulf between rich and poor in the 19th century. But his words echo down the decades. 

It seems, at times, that our country is now just as divided — between those insulated by wealth from the effects of globalisation and those who feel shut out; or between those who compete on Twitter to signal how virtuous they are and those who are made to feel that patriotism is prejudice and love of country is now the love that dare not speak its name.

There are other divisions, too — between politicians in Westminster and a population becoming alienated because of those politicians’ failure to listen. Between broadcasters who seek to serve the public and a public that is increasingly switching off.

Between elites who think their professional success means they know all the answers and those who wonder why these elites failed to see the banking crisis coming and failed to spread economic growth more fairly in the boom years.

Disraeli was writing of the gulf between rich and poor in the 19th century. But his words echo down the decades

Those divisions in our society were exposed for all to see by the Brexit referendum. There were different reasons why people voted to leave the EU, but at the heart of the campaign was a wish on the part of the majority to take back control from unaccountable elites, to make politicians more answerable to the people, and to make our country work in the interests of all: one nation once again.

But since the referendum, it has often seemed as though that desire for a fresh start has been continually frustrated by an unwillingness to come together behind that democratic vote.

Listening to some partisans in the ongoing Brexit debate, it is clear that they behave as though they think the other side are indeed ‘dwellers in different zones’ or ‘inhabitants of different planets’. Insults are hurled, cries of treachery traded, any suggestion of finding common ground denounced as a heresy. Sympathy for others seems in short supply.

But for democracy to work, there has to be understanding between people; there has to be compromise and a coming together.

Along with a majority of other people, I voted to reinvigorate our democracy by taking power back from unaccountable institutions and taking back control of our laws.

I recognise, however, that while the majority to leave was decisive, executing that decision, like all democratic decisions, means respecting everyone in our democracy.

Forty-eight per cent of the country voted to remain. Their voices need to be listened to, their hopes incorporated in our plan for the future. That doesn’t mean giving in to the much smaller number who want to overturn the decision and frustrate Brexit.

But it must mean that none of us Leavers should try to make our perfect Brexit the enemy of the common good.

Which is why I hope that everyone who believes in our democracy — in the importance of delivering Brexit and in the critical need to unite our country — will get behind the Prime Minister’s deal this week.

It is, of course, a compromise. But so many of the great British traditions and institutions I and many others value are the result of compromise.

Which is why I hope that everyone who believes in our democracy — in the importance of delivering Brexit and in the critical need to unite our country — will get behind the Prime Minister’s deal this week

We are governed by a system that reconciles the different interests of Government, Parliament and the Courts; our constitutional monarchy is underpinned by centuries of compromise, as is our national Church.

The devolution settlement is a compromise; our Press balances freedom of speech with a responsibility to be accurate in reporting; our economic system and welfare state balance the individual freedom to pursue success with the collective need to protect the vulnerable.

As the great liberal thinker Isaiah Berlin rightly argued, when one value or a single perspective is valued above all others, the tree of liberty is hacked at its roots. 

So while the Prime Minister’s deal is a compromise, it is not to be rejected for that reason alone. Quite the opposite. In balancing the freedoms that Brexit brings with assurances that smooth our path out of the EU, it provides the best way of delivering an exit that can secure our country’s unity and prosperity.

Of course, there are some who voted Remain for whom no Brexit is acceptable. Whatever deal Mrs May secured, they would find fault with it. But their answer, a second referendum, would only deepen and inflame the divisions it is our duty to overcome.

As the great liberal thinker Isaiah Berlin rightly argued, when one value or a single perspective is valued above all others, the tree of liberty is hacked at its roots

The demand for another vote is a declaration that those who voted Leave in 2016 were too stupid to know what they were doing or too prejudiced to appreciate the consequences.

Holding another referendum would only confirm the feeling among many that politicians don’t listen and won’t change.

It would undermine confidence in our democracy and any campaign that ensued would further fray the bonds that hold us all together — not least by fuelling demands for new votes in Scotland and Northern Ireland to break up the United Kingdom.

But it’s not only those calling for a second referendum who are, I fear, making a mistake. Some of those who believe most sincerely and passionately in Brexit have allowed arguments to be made about the Prime Minister’s deal which don’t reflect the reality of what’s been achieved.

It is not the case that this deal makes us a colony or vassal state. How could it when it gives us total control over our borders and ends our automatic payments to the EU? Colonies, by definition, don’t have control over their borders and they give up their natural resources to others.

This deal means we have the absolute freedom to decide who comes into this country, and on what terms. It also allows us to decide what pan-European programmes, if any, we want to join in.

As one of the leaders of the Leave campaign, I know that two of the most resonant demands from voters were control of our borders and money. This deal delivers — completely and, as it happens, without compromise — on both.

Some of those who believe most sincerely and passionately in Brexit have allowed arguments to be made about the Prime Minister’s deal which don’t reflect the reality of what’s been achieved

It also ensures we leave the EU’s legal order and, save for a few very limited areas, we are outside the control of the European Court of Justice. We can, if we wish, choose to continue to meet EU standards, as they change, to make cross-border trade easier. But we can refuse to accept any new EU rule on goods or agriculture we don’t want.

The ratchet of European integration has been stopped. Ever closer union ended.

We can begin to do things differently in all manner of ways when the deal is concluded. We can have new rules for our service sector to help create new jobs in the fastest growing part of our economy. We will continue to maintain the highest environmental standards but we no longer need to follow the EU rulebook and can do things in our own, better, way.

The deal also means we aren’t bound by the EU’s Common Defence and Security Policy and we’re out of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy. Our farmers are freed from the bureaucracy that held them back, and we take back control of all our fish stocks and access to our waters.

There are, of course, aspects of the deal which cause concern. It requires us to accept an arrangement called the backstop which places certain restraints on the ability of Northern Ireland to diverge from the EU in the event that we don’t conclude a full trade deal by the end of 2020.

The Irish government have pressed for a backstop throughout these talks because they see it as an insurance policy in order to keep the current open border on the island of Ireland.

But the backstop we’ve now agreed is very different from the arrangement the Irish government and the EU first wanted. It places more cards in our hands than theirs. If we play them with skill, we can get the final deal we want.

As a Unionist and a Brexiteer, there are aspects of the backstop I certainly find uncomfortable. It creates a difference in treatment between Great Britain and Northern Ireland which is troubling. I’d much prefer it if we had a unilateral exit mechanism.

But while it’s uncomfortable for us, it’s a mistake to think it’s a bed of roses for the EU. There are many reasons why they would not want it to last indefinitely — and it’s worth looking at them in detail.

If the backstop ever kicked in, we’d still be able to export our goods to Europe without any tariff barriers, but we would also have full control of our own borders, with free movement of people having ended. More than that, we wouldn’t be paying the EU any money any more. Not a penny.

More, even, than that, we could stop EU vessels entering our fishing waters. If we wished, we could deny French and Danish boats any of our fish. But they couldn’t stop us selling our catch to them.

On top of that, in the backstop our ability to ignore new EU laws, and indeed roll back the vast majority of existing EU laws, would be extensive. We could make our economy more competitive from day one, and still have guaranteed access to their economies.

In the backstop we could still negotiate, sign and implement new trade deals. They wouldn’t cover goods but could cover services, professional qualifications and investor protections.

Leaving without a deal on March 29 would not honour that commitment. It would undoubtedly cause economic turbulence. Almost everyone in this debate accepts that

I cannot imagine EU politicians tolerating for very long an arrangement which allows us to keep them out of our waters but sell all the fish we want to them; allows us access to their markets but restricts their citizens coming here; allows us to make our economy more competitive and ends all payments to their institutions. EU countries would want it to end. And if we do play our cards right, we can ensure that it does — on our terms.

Any objective assessment on this deal shows it delivers on the key Brexit demands and gives us the freedom to go further in the future.I fear, if MPs don’t support the PM’s deal this week, then the chance to come together as a country may be taken from us.

Some may say that ditching this deal will allow us to leave without any compromises. But we didn’t vote to leave without a deal. That wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped lead. During that campaign, we said we should do a deal with the EU and be part of the network of free trade deals that covers all Europe, from Iceland to Turkey.

Leaving without a deal on March 29 would not honour that commitment. It would undoubtedly cause economic turbulence. Almost everyone in this debate accepts that.

EU tariffs on food would hit farmers; new trade frictions would harm manufacturers. We would get through it, of course — we’re a great and resilient country. But jobs would be lost in the short term and none of us can be blasé about the damage leaving without a deal would cause.

We would also be open to criticism from those many Remain voters who are prepared to compromise and leave with a deal, but don’t want to depart without a deal, that we’d preferred our perfect to their good. They could argue we’d preferred ideology to inclusivity. Given the fragility of faith in our politics at the moment, it’s not a course I’d want to take.

And it’s a course we may not be able to take anyway. If the deal is voted down, then the Government is no longer determining events.

Parliament will then vote on whether we leave without a deal on March 29. A majority are likely to say they don’t want to take that risk, and Parliament is likely to ask for an extension of EU membership.

Whatever the merits of that course, it’s undoubtedly the case that it creates another risk — of the Commons diluting Brexit or the EU offering us a poorer deal.

The decisions all MPs face in the next few days will not be easy. And I respect the sincerity and passion with which every one of my colleagues holds to their position.

But if we don’t think coolly about what’s in the best interests of our country, we may find that we have failed to rise to this moment; failed to find the common ground on which our best future rests.

Delaying and diluting what we have or leaving without a deal risks perpetuating the difficulties when we need to overcome divisions to meet new challenges. It’s time we became one nation once again.  

The post Vote Leave leader Michael Gove warns rebel Tory MPs appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress https://www.gyrlversion.net/vote-leave-leader-michael-gove-warns-rebel-tory-mps/

[labourpress]

Dawn Butler pre-Budget speech

Dawn Butler MP, Labour’s Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, delivering a speech today in Central London, will say:

***CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY***

Thank you colleagues for being here today.

In particular, the race organisations.

The Runnymede trust, race on the agenda and operation black vote.

And a special thanks to Runnymede and the Women’s Budget Group for being the first organisations to look at intersectionality and compiling the analysis on the impact of austerity on gender, race and income.

This however will not be the first or last time I will reference your report.

I want to speak to you today on the need for action to challenge inequality in our economy and society ahead of the current chancellor Phillip Hammond’s budget next week.

This October marked 30 years since black history month started and over the years growing up as a black women in the UK….I have personally suffered from racism and sexism but I have seen a lot of black history in the making.

- From the first 4 black MPs elected 30 years ago

- To my elevation as the UK’s first black female minister in the House of Commons   

-The passing of landmark equality legislation, by Labour governments.

A lot has happened over the last 30 years and in my time, I have seen report after report after report which paints the problem so well. 

There’s endemic structural and systematic racism in the work place.

Over representation of black people in the criminal justice system and under representation in public life.

African-Caribbean and Bangladeshi children failed by the education system.  

And last month what did the government do?

An audit.

That was her big idea to bring all the data together… on a website.

Which tells us, shock horror, that discrimination and inequality is alive and kicking. 

But I knew that and everyone in this room knew that.

In the words of Kehinde Andrews, professor of race and racism at Birmingham city university:

“Racial inequality is as British as a cup of tea, and if the government did not know the scale of the problem before the audit then we should dissolve it immediately on the grounds of incompetence". 

He’s right.

We need action not audits.

But the truth is…how can we expect action from a government whose policies are the problem?

The “burning injustice of inequality” the prime minister talks about has been exacerbated by her government’s economic agenda. With every policy decision she adds fuel to the fire.

In 2010, George Osborne, once chancellor, now newspaper editor, (with no previous experience in that role I might add) unleashed a programme of spending cuts to the tune of £83 billion pounds. 

In that same year, Theresa May said and I quote:

“There are real risks that women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and older people will be disproportionately affected by proposed cuts to public spending”.  

Well thanks for the warning.  

Thanks for the audit to prove this warning true! 

If only she was the prime minister and could stop this from happening.

I do wish the prime minister would stop patronising our communities by saying she cares about inequality on the one hand and on the other hand creating a society.

Where low income African Caribbean Asian and minority ethnic families have seen a 19% drop in living standards

Where black and Asian families will lose more in public services than white families.

Where women who look like me are more likely to be unemployed than our white counterparts.

And when they compete in the jobs market, often over qualified, are more likely to be in low paid and insecure work.

This government are dismantling all the pillars of society that make our country fairer.

Blocking avenues to challenge discrimination with the introduction of employment tribunal fees to the tune of £1200.

Since judged unlawful by the Supreme Court thanks to persistent campaigning of the trade union, unison. Forcing the government to payback these fees.

But much of the damage has been done. There has already been a stark and substantial fall in claims, and a culture of putting up with discrimination in the workplace is well established.

And when it comes to housing.

Race continues to play a key factor in how people live in Britain today.

There are stark inequalities in home ownership. The aspiration to own a home unattainable for far too many in our community.

While the tragedy of Grenfell tower is symbolic of this same systemic and institutional inequality.

The blaze follows years of neglect by the conservatives on social housing.

Just imagine the Tory council announcing a £10m upgrade – only on the outside so that it isn’t an eye sore for the neighbours. But with no due regard for the care or safety of the residents inside.  

Grenfell was home to many people with protected characteristics but they were not protected and we must ask ourselves why.

After seven long years, this government continues to pursue an economic agenda based on discrimination and inequality.  

Demonstrated by acting without hesitation to slash our public sector. 

But with trepidation to tackle industrial scale tax avoidance and evasion by the super-rich elite and big business.

And its African Caribbean and Asian women who pay the price.

Let me tell you…  Phillip Hammond's budget next week will be no different.  

More cuts.  

More platitudes.  

And no solutions.  

Austerity is a failed tory party economic project, and has hit African Caribbean and Asian women the hardest.

New analysis released yesterday shows that because of their changes to universal credit low paid workers will be subject to an additional penalty with women and ethnic minorities hardest hit.

By April 2021, 5.9 million women living in households eligible for Universal Credit under 2013 rules will lose £4406, as a result of the combined impact of all changes to benefits, tax credits, universal credit, income tax, NICs and the National Living Wage introduced since June 2010. Black women, whether employed or not stand to lose £5030 a year

But I have a simple message today.  

This country needs a government not afraid to highlight uncomfortable truths face uncomfortable truths and tackle the uncomfortable truths.  

And yes, that means dealing with the issues of race and class in our economy.

If we are going to help build an economy for the many, not the few, then we must deal head on with race discrimination and economic inequality.

Labour is the party of equality and economic justice and

We will take action.

The burning injustices will drive our programme for government.  

And we have acted already.

Taking a bold step in our race manifesto.

Committing the next Labour government to eliminate inequality in our economy

To do that we need at least three things.

First of all boost income, secondly deal with discrimination in the workplace, and thirdly ensure that our government and employers are held to account

Regarding income, we cannot expect to make breakthrough on economic inequality without recognising that BME groups have been hardest hit by tax and benefits changes and cuts to public services … but also the stagnation of real wages.

People need and want the dignity that comes with decent wages.

Labour does not want a low wage economy  

Britain needs a pay rise and only a Labour government can deliver one.

We will boost the income of African Caribbean and Asian communities by raising the statutory minimum wage to £10 per hour by 2020.

And on discrimination, as the McGregor-Smith and Parker reviews recently highlighted, if you are from a black and minority ethnic background, you will not progress at the same rate as our white counterparts.

That’s why Labour will introduce equal pay audit requirements for large companies.

And implement the parker review recommendations to increase ethnic diversity on the board of Britain’s biggest companies.

We won’t stop there.

Labour will call time on name based discrimination.

Within the first 100 days of government we will launch an inquiry into name based employment discrimination and will roll out name-blind skills based recruitment practices, if necessary.

Finally on accountability

To ensure our government and employers are held to account

We will enhance the powers and functions of the equality and human rights commission, which has been subject to brutal cuts.

Grenfell was a watershed moment.

When you look at the names and faces of the “missing” and the dead from Grenfell it is clear that considerably vast majority are from our diverse communities.

The people that have suffered at the heart of these horrific events may have stopped searching for loved ones but they are still searching for answers.

And this government has a responsibility to give them answers.

There’s thousands of people living in high rise buildings across the country who need solutions.

Well we have an answer.

Set aside funds in the budget on Wednesday to install sprinklers, make homes safe and save lives.

There can be no price too high to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

So I’ve got another demand, publish a comprehensive equality impact assessment of the budget.

And another one, pause the roll out of universal credit. It must not continue until its fundamental flaws are fixed. So no more people, and particularly African Caribbean and Asian families are made worse off.

Labour is a government in waiting…serious about eliminating inequality from our economy.

We believe in boosting the local economy to help the national economy

Not content with doing research and evidence gathering.

But taking action.

Economy – justice and a decent home is the cornerstone of a decent society.

Maya Angelou said - History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.

If the Tories have no courage to U-Turn on its unfair policies then I say to them, hand over the reins to the Labour Party. We have the courage to do just that.

Thank you very much.