Squaring the Brexit Circle Revisited.
by Les May
THE political system of the United Kingdom (UK) is a representative or parliamentary democracy. Apart from the 1998 referendum in Northern Ireland on the Good Friday Agreement, the only attempts at direct democracy that I am aware of are the 1975 referendum and the 2016 referendum. Neither of these took place to determine 'the will of the people'. Both were attempts to prevent the political party which formed the government of the day from tearing itself apart. In 1975 it was the groupings around Tony Benn and Roy Jenkins who had differing views about the UK being a member of the Common Market. In 2016 it was the European Research Group (ERG) and the rest of the Tory party which had, and have, differing views about remaining a member of the European Union (EU). Each of the treaties which transformed the Common Market into the European Community was voted on by the parliament of each of the member countries, including the UK House of Commons. That is the way a representative democracy works.
I voted to leave the Common Market in 1975. About 60% of the people who took part voted to remain. I considered this was an overwhelming endorsement and accepted the result. I voted to remain in the EU in 2016. About 52% of those who took part voted to leave. I did not, and do not, think this is an overwhelming endorsement, but I accepted the result and its logical consequence, that we leave the EU.
What I do not accept is that I, and others, can have no say in what relationship the UK has with Europe and the rest of the world after the UK leaves the EU. It is simply a fact that the only question on the ballot paper was whether the UK should continue to be a member of the EU. I am not willing to accede to every item on the shopping list drawn up by the ERG and those who think like them.
For two years we have had a situation where many of the people who voted to leave the EU have been unwilling to accept that many people who voted to remain were and are genuinely concerned about the consequences which would follow and have a right to say so. Many of the people who voted to remain have spent their time in attempting to overturn the result of the referendum. They would have been better employed in looking for ways of mitigating the worst effects of leaving the EU and attempting to influence the nature of our future relationship with Europe.
For some people leaving the EU has become an end in itself. Calling them 'Little Englanders' seems entirely appropriate because they are unwilling to recognise that a majority of people in Scotland and Northern Ireland do not want to leave the EU or that the British-Irish agreement of 1998 has the status of an international treaty ratified by the UK parliament.
Posted by bammy at 21:00 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Brexit, EU referendum, Europe, Northern Ireland, Tony Benn, Tory party, Ukip
Tameside Council accused of political censorship over 'Che' poster!
Geoff Oliver and wife Maria who run El Cuba Libre
AS we recently reported, a furious row over civil liberties in Tameside, has erupted after a Greater Manchester GMP licensing officer, last Friday, visited the Sportsman Pub in Hyde, demanding that the pub landlord, Geoff Oliver, remove from his pub window a Cuban flag with the image of the Cuban revolutionary, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara emblazoned across it. The pub provides Cuban food in its restaurant known as 'El Cuba libre', which is run by the landlord and his wife Maria, known as Cangui, who is from Cuba.
Although the landlord says that the flag has been on display at the pub on and off for five years, he says that the GMP licensing officer told him to remove it and warned that there could be serious consequences if he refused to do so, warning him that it could be recorded as a crime.
Mr Oliver told the Morning Star newspaper that he was woken up last Friday morning, by the local police licensing officer, who told him that complaints had been received about him displaying a photograph of a 'terrorist' in his pub front window. He says that he was told that he could display the flag inside the pub but not from the front window and that if he didn't remove it, the officer would submit a crime report that could lead to a formal criminal investigation.
Guevara, is an iconic figure and a role model for many revolutionaries on the left and was part of the 26th July Movement that launched a rebellion to overthrow the former Cuban Dictator Fulgencio Batista, that led to the Cuban revolution in 1959 and a Communist government led by the former president of Cuba, Fidel Castro.
Geoff, 65, from Glossop, has described the incident as attempted 'political censorship' and has refused to take down the poster. He told a local newspaper:
'I just find it unbelievable. Every day people including many of our customers, walk round with Che Guevara's image on their T-shirts and other memorabilia. In Cuba, he's a national hero and one of the founding fathers...'
Dai Morgan, a regular in the pub, said: 'This is a disgraceful attack on free speech and no laughing matter. Who is this shocking ignoramus. Che stands with Mandela as one of the great fighters for freedom in the 20th century.'
A source told the Manchester Evening News (MEN), that the licensing officer had merely paid a visit to the pub on behalf of Tameside Council to make the landlord aware of the complaint and to 'ask if he would consider taking it down.' According to the MEN, both Greater Manchester Police and Tameside Council declined to comment.
This type of incident is not unusual in the UK, in spite of the fact that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, guarantees the right of freedom of expression. In 2010, David Hoffman, a photojournalist, from Bow in East London, was threatened with arrest if he did not remove from his front window a poster that said 'David Cameron is a Wanker!' In 2012, he received an apology and compensation from the police after they admitted it had been unlawful to insist that he remove the poster from his window and that this and other illegal actions by the police on the day, had amounted to 'unlawful interference with his Article 10 right to freedom of expression.' Mr Hoffman, later displayed the letter of apology from the police in his front window, along with another poster that read - 'David Cameron is still a Wanker!'
Posted by Blanco Posnet at 20:07 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Article 10 Human Rights Act 1998, Che Guevara, Cuba, David Hoffman, Freedom of Expression, Greater Manchester Police, Sportsman pub Hyde, Tameside Council
Scottish Nationalists call for Asylum for Asia Bibi
SCOTTISH National party MPs, according to The Guardian today, have written to Theresa May calling on the UK to grant asylum to Pakistani Christian Asia Bibi and her family, who have been in hiding in their home country since her acquittal on blasphemy charges last month.
A letter from SNP frontbencher Carol Monaghan, co-signed by the party's other 34 Westminster MPs, warns that Bibi lives in extreme danger in Pakistan where "violent mobs are calling for her execution".
Monaghan and her colleagues 'commend Canada, Spain and France for their offers of asylum, and note that Germany and Italy have reportedly held talks with Pakistan on the issue'.
Labels: Asia Bibi, asylum seekers, Christianity, christians, france, Germany, Italy, Pakistani, SNP, spain, The Guardian, Theresa May
A Symbol of Global Repression
THE title of this piece is that used by the 'i' newspaper to preface two extracts, one from The Times and the other from the Daily Telegraph. Both relate to the case of Asia Bibi the Pakistani Christian woman who was held on death row for eight years accused of blasphemy before finally being acquitted by the Pakistan Supreme Court. The acquittal resulted in mobs taking to the streets demanding that she be hanged. The rioting mobs were only placated when the president of Pakistan Imran Khan said that her acquittal would be 'reviewed'. Since then she has been in hiding and her defence lawyer has fled to the Netherlands of fear of his life.
A report in The Telegraph quoted Jeremy Hunt the Foreign Secretary as saying: 'So often, the persecution of Christians is a telling early warning sign of the persecution of every minority. But I am not convinced that our response to the threats facing this group has always matched the scale of the problem'.
A Times editorial said 'Asia Bibi's case symbolises the fate of persecuted Christians around the world. It is welcome that the Foreign Secretary has clarified the Government's stance whilst acknowledging the UK's failings with regard to safeguarding Christian's overseas.'
What is both surprising and disappointing is that it has been left to a Tory cabinet minister and two Tory supporting papers to take up the Asia Bibi case. The normally very vocal so called 'liberal left' with its obsession with identity politics has ignored her plight. I am also aware that some time ago one of the Northern Voices editors contacted Jeremy Corbyn's office for a response to the Asia Bibi case. A reply is still awaited.
As I have mentioned before I have no axe to grind on this as I am an atheist. But I cannot help noticing that all too often, because some Christians express views about homosexuality and abortion that some people do not like, Christians are seen only as persecutors of others and never as victims of persecution.
So far as I am concerned Christians are free to believe that they know what God thinks about homosexuality or abortion and to tell the rest of us if they are minded to do so. I am free to ignore them. It's called tolerance and stems from the belief that freedom of speech is having the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
Given that Asia Bibi is in fear of her life, yet her plight is ignored by the so called 'liberal left', puts into perspective the constant whingeing from assorted self interest groups about trivial incidents which they claim are 'offensive'. A stray hand on someone's knee or calling someone with full set of wedding tackle 'he' when they claim to be 'she', doesn't really compare with having mobs on the street determined to hang you from the nearest lamp post.
Labels: Asia Bibi, Christianity, christians, Daily Telegraph, Free speech, Jeremy Hunt, Northern Voices, Pakistani, the left, The Times
Asia Bibi's solicitor to go back to Pakistan
No date yet set for review of Asia Bibi case by Pakistan's Supreme Court
THE Pakistani solicitor, Saiful Malook, who successfully fought a long legal struggle to get Asia Bibi, the Christian woman at the centre of the current high-profile blasphemy case acquited, now says he will return home to represent her whenever the country's Supreme Court takes up a review petition against her.
Saiful Malook, who fled in fear for his life to the Netherlands following threats to him from radical Islamists after the Oct. 21 acquittal of Asia Bibi, said on Christmas Day that no date has been set by the court to hear the petition.
This announcement by Malook came as Asia, the 54-year-old mother of five, celebrated Christmas amid security despite being freed. Bibi had been on death row since 2010 on charges of insulting Islam's Prophet Muhammad.
The extemely radical Tehreek-e-Labbaik political party held violent nationwide protests demanding her public execution after her release.
Labels: Asia Bibi, lawyers, Pakistani, Supreme Court
ROCHDALE-GATE: CITY OF SHAME!
CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO SEE VIDEO OF FULL COUNCIL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFFKrkQaKqw&feature=youtu.be
To see The Rochdalian more clearly left click on image
Councillor Ashley Dearnley: 'Mr. Mayor, I take no pleasure… in Rochdale being reported in the Rotten Boroughs section of "Private Eye".'
Northern Voices editorial comment:
CARL Faulkner by creating this YOU TUBE video has accomplished a magnificent work of art, which penetrates to the roots of Rochdale's sad political panorama in all its sordid reality. It may well even be a microcosm that represents a wider crisis in our culture; that a civil administration like Rochdale town council clasps a self-confessed electorial fraudster like Faisal Rana to its breast is itself an assault on common decency.
The motion proposed by the Tory leader, Ashley Dearnley in the video was a strikingly meek and humble presentation urging Faisal Rana merely to 'consider his postion', having admitted his fraud. But if the Tories are meek, then the failure of the Liberal Democrats, to utter a dicky bird on the night of the vote was pathetic.
The situation in Rochdale has not been helped by the craven nature of the local press of late. None of the local media is holding our representatives on the council to account. The Rochdale Observer is a tired shell of its former self that rarely features a letter's page, and ROCHDALE ONLINE has not only abandoned its letter's section but has now shoved its whole letter's archive down the Orwellian Memory Hole forever.
Thus it has now been left to this regional Blog and Carl Faulkner, a local independent investigator and a relentless critic of the Rochdalian polluted political culture, to throw this scandal into relief.
Labels: Allen Brett, Ashley Dearnley, Carl Faulkner, electoral fraud, Faisal Rana, labour party, liberal democrats, Private Eye, rochdale, Rochdale MBC, Tory party
Hyde pub landlord refuses to take down picture of 'Che Guevara'!
POLICE in Greater Manchester have told a pub to take down its picture of Che Guevara, a landlord has alleged.
Geoff Oliver, who owns The Sportsman in Hyde, claimed at the weekend that he may face a criminal investigation for displaying a photo of the revolutionary in his pub window.
Mr Oliver told the Star that he was woken up on Friday morning by the local police licensing officer, who told him that complaints had been received about him displaying a photograph of a 'terrorist'.
The officer assured Mr Oliver that he could display the picture of Che inside the establishment, but warned that if he did not take it down from the window, he would be obliged to submit a report of the crime. This would then lead to a formal criminal investigation.
Mr Oliver, who also runs the Cuba Libre restaurant in the pub, told the Star that he would not be taking down the image of Che.
He also said that he felt there was a 'degree of intimidation' behind the request, and speculated as to whether it was related to the pub's imminent licensing review.
Dai Morgan, a regular at The Sportsman and the Cuba Libre, said: 'This is a disgraceful attack on free speech and no laughing matter.
'Who is this shocking ignoramus? Che stands with Mandela as one of the great fighters for freedom of the 20th century.'
Source: Morning Star, Sunday, 23rd December 2018
Editor: In 2010, the police forcibly entered the home of David Hoffman, a photojournalist, who was handcuffed and restrained. They entered his home, in Bow, East London, to force him to take down a poster in his window saying "David Cameron is a Wanker.". They were acting they said, following a complaint from a neighbour and enforcing the 'Public Order Act'. In 2012, he was awarded compensations]by the police (four figures) and an apology. Click on link:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/11/david-cameron-poster-police
Labels: Che Guevara, Free speech, Keystone cops, Sportsman pub Hyde
Not Cricket Councillor Rashid!
ON the 18th, December, the ambitious Rochdale Councillor Aasim Rashid welcomed the resumption of flights to Pakistan from Britain after a 10 years suspension. In a self-congratulatory Face-book entry he said:
'it was part of our agenda when our Rochdale Delegation visited Pakistan in Oct. that British Airways should resume flights to Pakistan and the England Cricket team playing in Pakistan. Tony Lloyd MP, Allen Brett and myself had very detailed discussion with British high commission in Pakistan...
'I would like to congratulate Overseas Pakistanis Minister Zulfi Bukhari for his team efforts. It is a huge example if we work together there will be a positive outcome.'
Councillor Rashid is lavish with his praise for an overseas minister who has a strange history.
Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari alias Zulfi Bukhari, was accused in the newspaper DAWN on November 20th, this year, of not cooperating with the investigators of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) probing a case into his alleged illegitimate assets.
Mr. Zulfi Bukhari is a close friend of the current prime minister of Pakistan Imran Khan. Earlier, in the July-25th, elections, he was in-charge of elections campaigns of PTI party chief Imran Khan for NA-53 Islamabad. He is a dual British-Pakistani national with family in the UK.
The NAB notice mentioned that Zulfi Bukhari owns six offshore companies which were revealed in Pakistan by The News reporter Umar Cheema last year.
Bukhari had in 2016 defended having offshore companies and said that it was 'legal and common practice for companies & businessmen like myself to establish commercial entities in different jurisdictions.'
According to the ongoing NAB enquiry : "Consequent upon revelation of Panama Papers, various allegations leveled that the petitioner in connivance with others has established various offshore companies in the British Virgin Island (BVI)."
Is this cricket?
It is to be hoped that the Rochdale MP Tony Lloyd and the noble boss of Rochdale, Councilor Allen Brett, know what they are getting into with Councillor Rashid and the curious politics of Pakistan.
Labels: Aasim Rashid, Allen Brett, biradari's politics, labour party, Pakistani, rochdale, Rochdale Council, Tony Lloyd
Squaring the Brexit Circle
IN the 2016 referendum I voted that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union (EU). I assumed that if a majority of people voted like I did the result would be honoured. Even though the outcome was not what I would have wished I believe that the result should be honoured and the UK should leave the EU in accordance with the expressed wish of the majority of the people who voted.
The ONLY question on the ballot paper was about the continued membership of the UK in the EU. There were NO questions about immigration, the European Court of Justice, the Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Agricultural Policy or indeed ANY of the myriad things which are claimed to have been an expression of 'the will of the people' by what former Tory politician Chris Patten has called the 'Maoist Tendency' of his party. Patten meant by this members of the European Research Group (ERG), one of two publicly funded services maintained for Conservative MPs. The public funding has been to the tune of more than a quarter of a million pounds since 2010.
Is it not remarkable that 'the will of the people' just happens to coincide with the wish list these MPs have drawn up and which they want to foist on the rest of us? They make their claims about knowing why people voted in 2016 because they think they have a right to shape the nature of the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union. The outcome of the 2016 referendum DID NOT give them a mandate to do this because there were no questions about it on the ballot paper.
If you doubt what I said in the last paragraph you might like to note that the 116 Tory MPs who voted against Theresa May in last week's leadership ballot did so because they did not like the nature of the future relationship with the European Union, NOT because she had declined to implement the outcome of the Referendum. Like one or two Labour politicians they have persistently conflated the question of being a member of the EU with the question of our future relationship with it. These questions need to be separated.
The Referendum told us how the first of these questions should be answered i.e. we should leave the EU. It did NOT tell us HOW the second question should be answered.
For the past two years the people who have monopolised discussion of the second question have been that same 'Maoist Tendency' of the Tory party. Theresa May's policy throughout has been to produce a solution which would placate this group. And it's not just May. Politicians on all sides have been behaving like rabbits trapped in the headlights of the ERG's speeding car whilst Theresa May squawks 'Brexit means Brexit' from the roadside like a demented parrot, too paralysed to make a move towards outlining possible alternative models for our future relationship with the EU after we leave.
That there are alternatives is shown by the fact that parliament will not vote for the ERG's 'no deal' scenario and the ERG will not support May's present offering. Simply calling for a second referendum, as Tony Blair and Vince Cable have done, or saying 'all options are on the table', is a symptom of that paralysis not an example of leadership.
In case you think I am letting Corbyn off the hook here I should make it clear that a Labour government would face all the same problems which are the downside of leaving the EU. So called 'Labour moderates' like Chuka Umunna have vacillated between initially toying with alternative models for the UK's future relationship with the EU and now supporting a 'people's vote' which is a second referendum in all but name. The same criticism can be made of Conservative MP Anna Soubry.
What is needed is a solution which honours the result of the referendum, and which both honours our obligations under the British-Irish Agreement of 10 April 1998 with regard to Northern Ireland and minimises the disadvantages of not being a member of the EU. That means frictionless trade between Britain and the EU.
Should you be one of the people who think there will be no disadvantages I will mention that from 1 February 2019 Europe and Japan will be joined in a free trade area for goods and services covering 650 million people and one third of the world's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). After we leave the EU we will no longer be part of it. Negotiating this deal took five years which may be a pointer to how long it will take a post EU Britain to do likewise.
Why I don't want a second referendum
I agree with Theresa May that calling a second referendum would undermine our democracy. In my view it would fuel the rise of right wing populism based on the argument that an 'elite' had chosen to disregard the expressed view of a majority of the people who voted in the Referendum that we should leave the EU. Anna Soubry has already been subjected to this. I repeat that there was only ONE question on the ballot paper.
I voted Remain in the June 2016. I still believe that we would be better off remaining as members of the EU. I have that in common with the people who are calling for a second referendum whether they are calling it that or giving it the more grandiose title of 'A People's Vote'. But I think they are mistaken.
Blair, Cable, Ummuna, Soubry, et al, who all oppose the UK leaving the EU, seem to assume that a second referendum will produce a different result. I can see no reason to take this for granted. No one can be sure that it would not produce the same result again, possibly on a smaller turn out. What then?
Does anyone seriously think that voters will be better informed than last time? The draft Withdrawal Agreement being touted by Theresa May runs to more than five hundred pages. How many voters are going to read and understand it? For that matter how many MPs are going to spend their Christmas holidays reading it? Already the ERG has 'helpfully' condensed the 585 pages of the document into a handy seven (7) page guide! Again it seems that the ERG are going to try to monopolise HOW we leave the EU, not just whether we leave the EU.
Nor do I think that any consideration has been given to what question would appear on the ballot paper. Asking the same question as in 2016 simply looks like an attempt to gerrymander the ballot. It says 'we'll keep you voting until you come up with the right answer'. So how about if the question is 'May's deal or no deal'? That's just as bad because it precludes any of the alternatives which I, and others, would find more acceptable than either option.
My biggest objection is to those MPs who want a 'A People's Vote' because they do not think there is any outcome which a simple majority of MPs would vote for.
My answer to these MPs is, 'You lot got us into this mess, so you can get us out of it. It's your job to collectively explore the options which will both respect the vote to leave the EU and minimise the disadvantages of not being a member of the EU. Ensuring that the UK honours its obligations under the British-Irish Agreement of 1998 is a job for Parliament not for the voters. In other words show some leadership'.
Respecting the vote and minimising the disadvantages
The European Free Trade Area (EFTA) and the European Economic Area (EEA) are not synonymous, but they are linked. Both are outside the EU, both are trading partnerships and neither are 'political projects' demanding ever closer political integration.
Membership of EFTA would deliver four things on the ERG wish list; withdrawal from the EU, no common fisheries policy, no common cgricultural policy and the right to enter into bilateral third-country arrangements. EFTA does not issue legislation, nor does it establish a customs union.
Membership of EEA would additionally allow access to the Internal Market of the EU. Specifically excluded from the EEA relationship with the EU are: common agricultural and fisheries policies, customs union, common trade policy, common foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs, direct and indirect taxation and economic and monetary union. Joining would require a continued contribution to the EU, albeit a smaller one resulting in a saving of 12 to 25%, and acceptance of the free movement of goods, capital, services and labour. Norway thinks these are a price worth paying.
I repeat what I have said several times before. The ONLY question on the Referendum ballot paper was about whether we wished to remain in the EU. The EFTA/EEA option delivers not only leaving the EU but many of the other things on the ERG 'wish list' which are claimed to be 'the will of the people'.
If indeed Labour's policy is 'If we cannot get a general election, Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote… ' then the EFTA/EEA option has to be on that table. A customs union, which seems to be Corbyn's preferred option would only cover goods not services.
What it does not deliver is an end to immigration. Some Labour MPs, e.g. Caroline Flint, are happy to set this demon loose, albeit indirectly. Flint was very careful in her choice of words, but it is clear that whoever posted her exchange with Anna Soubry on YouTube thought she meant immigration and immigrants. She should be warned that in my part of the world the word 'immigrant' is frequently taken to mean Pakistanis, many of whom have lived here all their lives.
Instead of asking for a re-run of the Referendum or 'A People's Vote' the MPs who recognise that leaving the EU will bring with it significant disadvantages need to press for wide public discussion of the options open to us which both honour the expressed wish of those who voted to leave the EU and minimise the damage from doing so.
A good start would be to say loud and clear that Theresa May's primary objective for the past two years has been to appease the ERG by acting as if the Referendum gave her a mandate to deliver all the things on their wish list even though they had never been voted upon.
At some time in the not too distant future Labour has to face the fact that whilst its policy of accepting the result of the Referendum but not committing itself to any definite proposals for the future has been shrewd, putting its faith in winning a vote of no confidence with seemingly no other alternatives being considered may be reckless given the time frame.
If Labour fails to win a no confidence vote and get a general election then I think the Corbyn project would be finished. If Labour wins it, then wins the election which follows and forms a government before 29 March, it will find itself presiding over a chaotic mess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Research_Group#Your_Right_to_Know_Dossier_18th_November_2018
https://www.britishirishcouncil.org/about/british-irish-agreement
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/police-protect-anna-soubry-as-brexit-yellow-vest-protesters-surround-her-and-shout-hitler-jibes-a4022286.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mppVchHyaiA
https://brexitcentral.com/erg-publish-right-know-case-governments-brexit-deal/
http://www.efta.int/About-EFTA/Frequently-asked-questions-EFTA-EEA-EFTA-membership-and-Brexit-328676
http://www.efta.int/eea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsPo2XhoM54
Labels: Brexit, European Union, Jeremy Corbyn, labour, labour party, Les May, Theresa May, tony blair, Vince Cable
'NAE PASARAN!' – and the Labour Government
Review by Chris Draper
I'VE just watched the film "NAE PASARAN!", the story of how some Scottish workers disrupted Pinochet's fascist regime and would urge you to catch it when it arrives in your area. If it's not being shown in your town then persuade your community group, union branch or political friends to organise a screening – you won't be disappointed. In September 1973 Pinochet, backed by the CIA, seized power in Chile and established a dictatorship with concentration camps, torture and mass murder. Condemnation of the coup was immediate, worldwide and included many who may not have supported the system destroyed by Pinochet yet were appalled by the barbarity of his regime.
'Nae Pasaran!' tells the story of how workers at an East Kilbride factory in 1974 refused to handle aero engines sent by Pinochet's airforce for repair and servicing. Their action infuriated the regime but gave hope to Pinochet's opponents. 'Nae Pasaran!' movingly reveals the personal stories of four men, one now dead and three very old, who initiated the action. One of the four, Bob Foulton was a church elder who started the ball rolling by refusing to handle the Chilean engines on humanitarian grounds. To me the key underlying theme of the movie is the importance of direct action rather than Parliamentary politics. The men refused to do what they considered wrong didn't just write to their MP or await union instructions, they acted first and sought support afterwards. It's just as well as they received scant support from the Labour Government and although this isn't a central concern of the film 'Nae Pasaran!' prompts politically-inclined viewers to reflect on this issue and it's worth examining the facts.
At the time of Pinochets's September 1973 coup Ted Heath's Tories were in power but within months (February 1974) Harold Wilson's Labour Government was elected and was in office when the East Kilbride workers began their action (March 1974). Besides the eight aero engines, Pinochet's regime was also anxiously awaiting other vital military supplies from Britain including two frigates, two submarines and a refitted destroyer. To the absolute shock, surprise and disgust of loyal Labour supporters, in April Wilson's newly elected government announced it would honour all existing Chilean military contracts!
Rather than adding strength and legitimacy to the action of the East Kilbride workers the Labour Government did precisely the opposite. It successfully leant on the national leadership of the AUEW union to direct the workers to handle the engines (the men only partly complied). As the film describes, the engines were eventually returned to Chile through subterfuge and likely Labour government collusion. It is not mentioned in the film but the 1974-1979 Labour government refused to isolate the Pinochet regime. Minister Michael Meacher met a delegation led by the Chile Solidarity Campaign and informed them that he would not impose a trade embargo as it might harm British jobs and business. In fact between 1974-79 British investments in Chile more than doubled from £13m to £28m. Although the government did permit entry to Britain by some refuges from the Pinochet regime as Labour Home Office Minister Alex Lyon laconically admits in the film, they were first individually screened on the basis of information supplied by the CIA!
Despite all evidence to the contrary, Labour apologists argue that 'next time it will be different'. It was therefore significant to witness what happened in 1998 when, under another Labour administration Pinochet was held in Britain in response to an International Arrest Warrant charging him with Human Rights Violations, including the murder and the torture of 94 Spanish nationals. Instead of belatedly making amends for Labour's previous record Jack Straw, the responsible Minister sought every possible opportunity to evade his moral obligations. After the Law Lords repeatedly ruled Pinochet should stand trial Straw resorted to the dubious device of claiming he was medically unfit. When Pinochet flew back to Chile, on descending from the plane he mocked Straw's claim by rising triumphantly from his wheelchair to greet his adoring fascist supporters!
Labour loyalists will inevitably still insist 'next time it will be different' and some find reassurance in Jeremy Corby's denunciation of Pinochet to a BBC reporter on his 1998 arrest, 'one of the great murderers of the century'. I would remind such simpletons that Tony Blair derided Thatcher's administration as 'the Party of Pinochet' while Peter Mandelson called Pinochet 'a brutal dictator' whose claim of immunity was 'gut wrenching'. Even as Harold Wilson's newly elected Labour government prepared to sell the 'Nae Pasaran' workers down the river, in Parliament he hypocritically denounced Pinochet's regime as an 'oppressive fascist government'. Doesn't madness reside in doing the same thing time-and-time-again in expectation of a different result?
Labels: Chile, CIA, films, labour party, scotland
DEMOCRACY & the PRESS in ROCHDALE
by Clive Jones
DEMOCRACY in Rochdale is dying !
The Council has a voice the local press the Rochdale residents have little or no voice. You can write in to the Council with your concerns and it may or may not get a result.
A democracy is a dynamic environment where public concerns should circulate freely. This means that information must flow freely to the public and the best vehicle for this is the press.
However, press freedom is being eroded by the power of certain authorities both central and local including intimidation etc.
If the press has a one sided voice it is not democratic and we are not in a democracy.
Labels: democracy, free press, media, rochdale
Emperor's New Gender & Liverpool Leaflet
Left click on above leaflet to get clear image.
Last April the above leaflet got a lad thrown out of the Anarchist Liverpool Book fair for distributing it. Readers must make their own judgement about the issues and intricacies of gender politics. British Anarchists these days are fragile plants who can't cope with criticism even when it is badly written and poorly produced as above. Northern Voices stands up for free speech and doesn't take sides in this knock-about stuff. Life is hard enough without having to obsess about all this trivia with the drama Queens of anarchism.
Labels: feminism, gender politics, Gender Recognition Act, transphobia, transsexual, women
Disgraced Councillor Brett Offer's Apology
YESTERDAY at a Hearing Rochdale Council leader Allen Brett, through his solicitor, gave an unreserved apology for having threatened to gerrymander funding for highway maintenance so that a ward that didn't vote Labour in last May's local elections was disadvantaged.
The Audit & Governance Hearing found that Councillor Brett had been in breach of Paragraph 5 of the Councillor's Code of Conduct, when earlier this year he discussed acting in an unlawful way at a meeting of the Labour group which included other Labour councillors.
Even where the unlawful comments made are claimed to be made as 'banter' or as a joke, such remarks are not afforded the protection that public officials can claim them to be private remarks under 'Chatham House rules', as Councillor Brett sought to claim in his defence.
In his report to the Hearing the investigator Simon Goacher found that there was no evidence Councillor Brett would have acted on the 'threat' he made in his comment, and he had not acted in breach of paragraph 6 of the Code of Conduct, therefore in consequence '[h]e has not sought to obtain improper advantage/disadvantage for any person'.
What the Hearing did find, in keeping with Mr. Goacher's finding, is: 'he [Councillor Brett] has failed to comply with paragraph 5 of the Code as he has brought himself, his office and the Council into disrepute.'
The Hearing accepted that '[t]he comments made by Councillor Brett and widely reported will, understandably, have had a detrimental impact on the public's perception of Cllr Brett and the Council.'
Perhaps we should leave almost the last word to Councillor Brett's solicitor, Mr. Dixon, who told the Hearing that with Cllr Brett 'What you see is what you get!'
The sanctions will require that the council leader to undertake further training relating to the code of conduct and the committee panel will publish its findings on the matter.
Following the hearing, Coun Brett in a statement given to the Manchester Evening News said:
'I have said many times that my comments were not meant to be taken seriously and this process has finally concluded there was no way I could have influenced where our record road investment should be allocated.
'I now want to put this behind me and get on with the job of transforming our borough, which we are very much doing.
'I also want to look at ways of increasing our road repair programme even further because I know it's something many of our residents want
us to do.'
As a result of the hearing a recommendation has been made that in future all councillors undertake further training on the code of conduct.
Labels: Allen Brett, councillors, labour, labour party, men, rochdale, Rochdale Council, Rochdale MBC
WOKE-up vs Sleepwalking politics?
by Brian Bamford
'Woke' is increasingly used as a byword for social awareness.
EARLIER this month Helen Steel and some other women were thrown out of the Manchester Anarchist Bookfair for distributing a leaflet with which the organisers apparently disapproved. This leaflet was not as was initially claimed - a so-called Terf leaflet attacking transexuals, but rather was a considered argument against what the leaflet described as 'The Curse of Identity Politics'.
The authors of the leaflet offer a critique of the current thrust of anarchism in the UK, as is shown in their introduction below, but should this be accepted as grounds for their exclusion?:
'Anarchism in the UK is a joke. Once symbolising hard-fought struggles for freedom, the word has been stripped bare to make way for narrow-minded, separatist and hateful identity politics by middle class activists keen to protect their own privileges. We write this leaflet to reclaim anarchism from these identity politicians.'
Northern Voices may disagree with some of the contents of this leaflet but it ought not to be grounds for the exclusion of those putting forward these ideas. Indeed, we seriously consider that there ought to be a mix of diverse views at bookfairs that profess to be anarchist or libertarian.
Whatever else the authors argue for authors which would seem to include Helen Steel are right conclude with the following statement:
'Final note. To us anarchism is cooperation, mutual aid, solidarity and fighting the real centres of power. Anarchist spaces should not be for those who merely want to fight those around them. We have a proud history of internationalism and diversity, so lets reclaim our politics for a genuinely inclusive future.'
wokeanarchists@protonmail.ch - wokeanarchists.wordpress.com
To read the leaflet that Helen Steel and the others were chucked-out for distributing go to:
https://wokeanarchists.wordpress.com/
https://325.nostate.net/.../against-anarcho-liberalism-and-the-curse-of-identity-politics-...
Labels: anarchism, censorship, Free speech, gender politics, Helen Steel, Indentity Politics, Manchester and Salford Anarchist Bookfair, politics, WOKE
Tameside Council accused of political censorship o...
Scottish Nationalists call for Asylum for Asia Bib...
Hyde pub landlord refuses to take down picture of ...
Northern Anarchist Network Statement:
Another Anarchist Bookfair Drama in Manchester
BOLD & the local media
Can Councillor Brett Survive the banter
'Where There's Muck There's Brass'
Back To The Dark Ages?
Another Visit To Hate Speech
Sauce For The Goose
Islamo-phobia or Fear of Political Islam?