The defeat of Labour Party by the Conservatives in the recently concluded British elections has raised a debate on whether the results could serve as a lesson to the US Democrats on the danger of moving too far to the left.

While Boris Johnson has always been compared to President Donald Trump of the Republicans, Democrat’s Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have always been viewed as versions of Jeremy Corbyn. The supporters of the two Democrats leftists believe that just like Corbyn, they offer the electorate a chance to change the system that is rigged in favour of the rich while ignoring the have-nots.

There’s no doubt that Corbyn has always inspired elements within the Democratic party. Last week three hours before British polls closed, Sander’s national organising director tweeted that the “Bernie team says #VoteLabour”.

It was not the first time that Corbyn and the Labour party were attracting interests from the Democratic party. The Nation revealed that Just after Corbyn’ exemplary performance in the 2017 election against the then British Prime Minister Theresa May, Democratic Congressional aides flew to London to hold a meeting with two British economist to discuss Corbyn’s evolving economic policy.

Some pro-Democrats American writers such as Robert Borosage went as a far as expressing optimism that “just as Reagan and Thatcher rose together, perhaps so too will Barnie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn,”

“In the United Kingdom, Jeremy Corbyn, a British version of Bernie Sanders, in that he was dismissed for years as cranky radical while acting as inconsistent critic of New Labour’s move to the right, could well lead the party to victory in the next elections,” he added.

“Along with senator Elizabeth Warren’s imprint on the early Democratic ideas primary, have driven the Democratic debate to the left.”

With the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary only two months away, Democrat moderates are using British election results to highlight the danger the party faces if it drifts too far to the left.

“Look what happens when the Labour party moves so, so far to the left. It comes up with ideas that are not able to be contained within a rational basis quickly,” warned former US Vice President Joe Biden who is also vying for the Democrat’s ticket. “You are going to see people saying, my God Boris Johnson, who is kind of a physical clone of the president, can win.”

Biden received support from several key Democrats among them New York’s former Mayor and presidential hopeful Mike Bloomberg, who said “I think it’s sort of a catastrophic warning to the Democratic Party to have somebody that can beat Donald Trump and that is not going to be easy. Americans want to change, but I think they don’t want revolutionary change, they want evolutionary change.”

Some moderates in the Democratic party, have also warned that people will not just vote for a radical economic plan or manifesto just because they don’t like a certain leader. This is in reference to manifestos unveiled by Labour in the run-up to British elections.

While Johnson unveiled a slim manifesto, Corbyn, came up with 105-page manifesto that pledged to rationalise rail, mail energy and water, and free college tuition fee. The Labour leader also pledged to target the rich by imposing a 45p tax rate on those earning more than £80,000 and a 50% rate above £123,000.

The same radical approach has been taken by the leftist in the US Democratic party. Sanders has vowed, to nationalize America’s private healthcare under Medicare for all. He has also promised free college tuition, a public housing scheme, and infrastructure.

Leading left-winger Elizabeth Warren, who has been doing well in the polls, has also been attacked by the moderate for her blueprint which seeks to replace America’s private health insurance system by a state-run Medicare system.

However, other political commentators have cautioned against drawing parallel between UK and US elections pointing out that the two countries have structural and policy differences.

Waleed Shahid, the spokesman for justice Democrats argued that Corbyn’s defeat was a simple warning for the Democrats to target the middle class if they intend to win.“The lesson for the entire Democratic Party Coalition: Across the Western world, centre-left parties are bleeding voters in post-industrial places to the right-wing or to not voting at all. That’s a serious development that’s happening all over the Western world,” he said.

John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster working for Biden also argued that “there’s little evidence to show that the results of a foreign country will affect the way American Democrats think about their candidates.”However, he noted, “There’s plenty of people, beyond any of us, who make the argument that if you have too liberal, or an ultraliberal, Democratic nominee, it puts at risk what is at stake. Does it reinforce that? Absolutely, it reinforces that.”

If the rejection of Corbyn by the working class had anything to do with his extreme left-leaning policies, then both Sander and Warren are likely to lose in case any of them faces Trump in the elections. Trump would prefer to run against them rather than facing Biden and Bloomberg who are more likely to appeal to the White working class.

So far Biden seems to be doing good as the polls suggest. He is mainly banking on the Key southern states such as South Carolina where he enjoys the support of black voters. But Sander is also gaining ground very quickly.

Biden is also ahead in Texas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee with significant points over his opponents. Initially he wasn’t doing well in New Hampshire as his rival Warren surged past him. But a new poll by WBUR/Mass/NC has showed him making significant gains. In Iowa, he is now ahead of fellow Democratic contenders Buttigieg and Warren, according to another poll by the Emerson College.

L'articolo Corbyn’s Defeat: A Wakeup Call For US Democrats proviene da InsideOver.

There is no doubt that Julian Assange’s release of thousands of secret diplomatic cables sent shock waves through the upper echelons of power that continue to be felt almost 10 years down the line. With great support from the international media, he transformed WikiLeaks from a nondescript website to an important journalistic tool that exposed hidden injustices.

His revelation of human right violations, war crimes, corruption and tax dodging behaviour of the elites, enabled citizens to hold leaders to account and interrogate abuse of power. Assange saw this as the only means through which oppressive and corrupt governments could be disabled.

Nigel Bowles and James Hamilton in their book Transparency in politics and the Media: Accountability and Open Government, noted that Assange, through WikiLeaks, encouraged and gave a strong moral support to the act of whistle-blowing.

To the mainstream journalism and human rights activists, Assange’s revelations were for the common good since they deepened public understanding of the governing process, and also exposed the underhand of the state in human rights violation.

But despite WikiLeaks being a key resource for those who were interested in fighting for societal change and justice, it appears all those who benefitted from the revelations have deserted Assange in his hour of need. His suffering is mainly being investigated and highlighted by independent medics, and not members of the fourth estate as one would have expected.

Very few newspapers talk about his plight, and rarely will you hear human rights activists raising their voices to champion for his release. Even the few stories about his suffering that are highlighted in the press, do not attract much attention from the audiences, making one to conclude that Assange is on his own.

Just last week more than 60 British doctors wrote an open letter to the British Home Secretary expressing fear that that the WikiLeaks’s founder’s health is so bad that he could die in prison. The doctors based their fear on harrowing account of those who saw Assange when he appeared in court on 21 Oct and a recent report by the United Nation special rapporteur who warned that “continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life.”

Assange has been under detention for the last eight months following his forceful eviction from the Ecuadorian Embassy where he had been holed up since 2012. But even before his removal from the Embassy, doctors had begun to question the status of his mental and medical health.

One American doctor who had been conducting several medical and mental checks on him inside the Ecuadorian since 2017, had noted his deteriorating condition and raised the alarm. In a letter to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet and the Commissioner for Human for the European Council, said that prolonged and indefinite confinement had seriously affected Assange’s mental health.

“Mr Assange’s situation differs from a typical prisoner in a conventional prison, in fact his position is worse than a conventional prison in many respects. His confinement is indefinite and uncertain, which increases chronic stress and its myriad of chronic physical and serious psychological risks, including suicide. I believe the psychological, physical and social after-effects will be long-lasting and severe,” she wrote.

Two days after the letter was written, Assange was hounded out of the Ecuadorian Embassy and arrested by British police for jumping bail.

Belmarsh prison where Assange is currently being detained is a Category A prison which was once described as Britain’s Guantanamo Bay. It holds hardcore criminals and individuals considered to be of the greatest threat to the public, such as terrorists.

In 2007 the prison was under probe for its large number of suicide cases. A task force was immediately set up to identify and prevent causes of suicide after three inmates killed themselves within just one month.

Although conditions at Belmarsh are said to have improved, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons in his report covering 29 January to 9 February 2018, revealed that the conditions inside the prison “were claustrophobic, cramped and extremely uncomfortable,” adding that, “there is a failure to ensure adequate treatment of and/or conditions for prisoners.” Similar views had also been expressed by a journalist from The Independent who after being granted access to the prison wrote, “The area is desperately cramped and uncomfortably warm.”

Experts believe the situation inside the prison can affect psychological and mental health of an individual, leading to suicide, and according to Samaritans, prisoners are ten times more likely to commit suicide. From this, it is evident that Assange’s condition may become worse and needs a quick response.

But how easy is it for journalists or other interested parties to visit Assange in prison so that the state of his health can be fully understood? According to British Ministry of Justice, any request for “face to face visits from either the prisoner or journalist should be directed to the Governor by written application, explaining why the visit is necessary, its purposes and why it cannot be satisfied by other means.

Approval of a visit request by a journalist will normally be granted where the prisoner can confirm that the matter in question relates to an alleged miscarriage of justice and that the sole purpose of the visit is to allow him/her the opportunity to highlight an alleged miscarriage of justice in his/her own case” Assange’s case has good grounds to meet this criteria as he is still being kept in prison despite finishing his jail term. The only reason for this according to British authorities is that he may run away if freed.

Secondly according to the Ministry of Justice, a request for a visit can be granted “if there is sufficiently strong public interest in the issue sought to be raised during the visit and the assistance of that journalist is needed.” Of course, Assange is a public figure and the status of his health is a matter of great concern to members of the public who still admire him. Therefore a visit by a journalist can help ease some anxiety among those concerned.

The Ministry of Justice further adds that “In respect of either reason for a visit mentioned above, the Secretary of State must also be satisfied that the visit is the only suitable methods of communication. That the journalist intends a serious attempt to investigate or bring to public attention the prisoners case or the other issue with a sufficiently strong public interest raised by the prisoner.”

It is difficult to tell whether an attempt had already been made by members of the fourth state to request for permission to visit Assange. But it is also possible that a request was made but denied. One British journalist once said that she found it easier to visit a military prison in Vladimir Putin’s Russia than to gain access to a British jail. This calls for some persistence from members of the fourth estate to have Assange’s health status be known.

L'articolo The WikiLeaks WikiLoner: Why Julian Assange Feels Abandoned proviene da InsideOver.

Almost a third of British voters are planning to cast their ballot tactically, a move likely to alter the outcome of the elections. Tactical voting simply means people are casting their votes for candidates they wouldn’t normally support, in an attempt to stop other candidates from winning.

Experts are warning that the election scheduled for Dec 12 could see the most intense tactical voting in British history, “potentially deciding the outcome and determining whether UK will finally leave the EU.”

Brexit is the key issue influencing the electorate from both sides to vote tactically to achieve their preferred outcome. Remain campaigners are urging their supporters to vote tactically to prevent a Conservative government from forcing Brexit in January 2020, while Leavers are doing so to prevent Labour and other parties opposed to Brexit from coming to power.

According to latest BMG polls on Brexit, 54% now want Britain to remain in the EU while 46% want Britain to come out of the European Union. This shows that many Britons have changed their minds and are now willing to stay in the EU. The figures further show that 31% of Remainers, and 30% of Leavers have expressed intentions of voting tactically during the elections because of Brexit.

But does tactical voting work? Yes, it does. According to a study conducted in 2014, tactical voting led to the election of nine Labour MPs and 21 Liberal Democrat MPs during the 1997 elections.

It is for this reason that the Remainers had hoped to defeat Conservatives in several constituencies in the upcoming election. But things changed earlier this month when Nigel Farage announced that the Brexit Party wouldn’t be fielding candidates against Conservatives in 317 constituencies. He went on to withdraw 39 more Brexit Party candidates from seats occupied by Labour and SNP to give the Conservatives an upper hand.

Mrs Gina Miller who is one of those pushing for tactical voting among Remainers, believes that Nigel Farage’s move reduced the number of seats where tactical voting stood a good chance of making a difference from 68 to 51. As a result, Remainers now have to work extra hard to achieve any significant result from tactical voting.

This is further compounded by the fact that unlike Leavers who only have to choose a candidate from the Conservative or Brexit Party, Remainers have almost seven parties to choose from. Finding the right candidate from such a crowded field to face off with a candidate fronted by Conservatives or the Brexit Party is a complex task. Any poor judgement would lead to Remain votes being scattered across different anti-Brexit parties thus giving Conservatives an easy victory.

“The remain side is in a bit of panic because of the split in the Remain vote, which is much greater than it is on the Leave side,” said Sir John Curtice, who is a leading pollster and a Professor at the University of Strathclyde.

To assist voters in casting their ballots tactically and preventing a split of votes among Remain parties, many tactical voting websites have been set up to rally electors in every constituency behind a candidate who is likely to meet their Brexit desire. For instance, if one constituency has many Remainers who are allied to different political parties, they would be urged to come together and vote for one pro-remain candidate who would enable them to block a Conservative candidate from winning.

When advising voters on who to vote for, the websites are relying on previous data such as the voting pattern amongst demographics in previous elections.

One of the tools dedicated to offering guidance in tactical voting is RemainUnited.org founded by Gina Miller, a staunch Remainer who took the government to court over Brexit and won. On the website, voters are asked to enter their postcode and are advised on which candidate they should cast their ballot for in their “only chance to stop Boris”.

Miller told the Observer if “If we don’t tactically vote, what we will end up with is a Tory majority that is going to pursue a Brexit plan that is no longer theoretical.” Remain United strongly believe that proper tactical voting would lead to a hung parliament, with Conservatives returning 309 MPS, Labour 233, SNP 53, the Liberal Democrats 33, the DUP 10, Plaid Cymru three and the Greens left with one. A coalition comprising of Labour, Liberal Democrats, and SNP would then give Remainers a slim majority to form a government.

Getvoting.org is another website for tactical voting under the belief that if 40% of Remainers voted tactically then a coalition of Labour, Plaid Cymru, SNP and Green, would have a majority of four seats to form a government and prevent Brexit. They are mainly focusing on 100 seats which they feel can be influenced through tactical voting.

The Telegraph has also offered some tactical voting guidance to both sides by advising Remainers to vote Labour if the party currently holding the seat has a majority of only 10 per cent. Those in Scotland are advised to vote for Labour if it is the party holding the seat, and if the SNP are in second place but the Conservatives are within 10 points of the winner. They also urged Remainers to consider voting for Labour in areas where Remain parties have a low chance of winning.

The paper advised Pro-Leave to vote tactically by voting Brexit Party if the Conservatives haven’t won the seat since at least 1992 or since the constituency was created, or if the Conservatives have less than 30% in 2017 elections. In general, they advised Leavers to consider voting for the Conservatives in areas where the Brexit Party does not have a realistic chance of winning.

Both Remainers and Leavers remain optimistic that tactical voting would influence the outcome of upcoming and give them the desired outcome.

On whether Remainers have a chance of winning through tactical voting Prof, Curtice said “What will be crucial will be how much anti-Tory tactical voting there is. A relatively smaller number of voters doing it in the right places can make a difference. My judgement at the moment is that with Tories in a 10-point lead, it won’t be enough. But if the lead comes down a bit, maybe it will.”

L'articolo Tactical Voting Could Alter the Outcome of British General Election proviene da InsideOver.

Great Britain has always been the land of opportunities and a melting pot of cultures. Has the Brexit vote unveiled hidden thoughts latent before and now more openly expressed? Is Britain now becoming a racist society? 

Malcolm X, in 1965, visited Smethwick, not far from Birmingham because that town was perhaps the most racist place in Britain. One year before that visit, the Conservative MP, Peter Griffiths, had been elected on the shameful slogan ‘If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour’. As a reaction to that election, Labour came to power for the first time in the last 13 years. Not in Smethwick however, where the Tories won the most racist election campaign ever fought in Britain.

Four years later, on 20 April 1968, Enoch Powell, a Conservative MP, gave a speech to the Tories Political Centre in Birmingham, that strongly criticised mass immigration. Powell, in his famous “Rivers of Blood” speech, warned his audience of what he believed would be the consequences of continued unchecked mass immigration from the Commonwealth to the UK.

And what’s happening now? After the Brexit vote, this political campaign is showing fear and rising racism accusations inside the main parties. Boris Johnson has been repeatedly accused of islamophobia and sexism; Jeremy Corbyn of antisemitism and, more recently, of anti-Hinduism.

“The Conservatives and Labour had both moved to the extremes and it was only the Liberal Democrats who now occupied the liberal centre-ground of British politics,” former ex-Tory MP Heidi Allen explained. Feeling isolated and uncomfortable inside parties they didn’t recognize anymore, some moderated and centrist MPs just left. Some of them decided to stand down, some others joined the Liberal Democrats, as Heidi Allen and eleven founding members of Change UK did, this year.

Jeremy Corbyn is accused by his rival to be a dangerous socialist who would wreck the British economy; while on the other side, Boris Johnson is considered a populist, a wicked capitalist who just wants to enrich the richest and doesn’t care about the poor people. And what about the other candidates collecting gaffes and being forced to apologize or resign because of what they said or wrote in the past or during this snap campaign?  Labour and Tories spokesmen explain that hundreds of candidates have been selected in a short space of time, as a consequence, it has been impossible to check all their past behaviours, statements or skeletons in the closet.

Corbyn’s accusation of antisemitism

Jewish groups have accused Corbyn, a far-left politician, of allowing a massive rise in anti-Semitism within the ranks of the party that was once considered the natural home of British Jewry.

The Labour Party has been investigated for institutional racism by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission as it ‘suspected’ the party had committed ‘unlawful acts’ in its handling of the anti-Semitism crisis. A formal inquiry into reports of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party was also launched earlier this year, in May.  The party has constantly claimed it is ‘implacably’ opposed to anti-Semitism in any form.

But, first of all, Jewish people are pointing out Corbyn’s positions during the last four years. They don’t forget and don’t forgive the self-proclaimed “friendships” with representatives from Hamas and Hezbollah when inviting members for a parliamentary meeting in 2009, but also questionable associations with Holocaust deniers and anti-Zionists. Since becoming Labour Party leader in 2015, Corbyn has been criticized as an outspoken critic of Israel and campaigner for Palestinian rights and has been accused of turning a blind eye to the resurgence of anti-Semitism within British politics and the party itself.

All the efforts to respond to criticism have been judged as weak and not persuasive enough. Corbyn has been repeatedly lambasted for his failure to tackle antisemitism within Labour. As an example: in 2018, the party received 863 complaints of anti-Semitism but took action in only 101 of those cases. This is definitely considered to be an insufficient effort.

On the other hand, someone who clearly showed all his disappointment was Israel Hayom. The publication said that almost 50% of Jews living in the UK state that they will leave if Corbyn wins the general election. A recent poll by the Jewish Leadership Council, a British-Jewish advocacy group, also found that 47% of British Jews would “seriously consider” emigrating if Corbyn is elected Prime Minister. Some 87% of British Jews believed Corbyn to be anti-Semitic, and 90% said they will not vote for Labour, the poll found.

Corbyn answered that British Jews “have nothing to fear” if his party wins the December elections and he becomes PM. “Anti-Semitism and racism is an evil within our society. I’ve done everything to confront it throughout my life, and will always do so,” Corbyn told the Guardian.

British Rabbi to boycott Labour

According to the Jewish Chronicle, prominent British Rabbi Jonathan Romain has taken the unprecedented decision of urging congregants to vote against Labour warning that a Corbyn-led government “would pose a danger to Jewish life as we know it,” He did this by sending a letter to all the families who are members of his congregation at Maidenhead, a large market town in Berkshire with an estimated population approaching 58,850. “This has never happened under any previous Labour leader … so the finger of responsibility really does seem to point to Jeremy Corbyn. I am therefore suggesting we should each put aside all other considerations and vote for whichever party is most likely to defeat Labour in whatever constituency we are in – even if we would never normally vote for that party,” the Rabbi wrote.

After this personal plea, a few days ago, the Rabbi also decided to write a letter which was published on the Daily Mail. “I have never written an article like this before,” he explained adding that he has always avoided being political and has never been in the business of taking sides. But, this time it is different.  “Few can be blind to the fact that, if Corbyn gets into No. 10, we will have a PM who is at worst anti-Semitic and at best content to tolerate anti-Semitic behaviour.” According to the Rabbi, Corbyn, during his mandate as Leader of the Labour Party, has allowed antisemitism to spread like a “fast-growing cancer”. He also admitted that other British political parties have their “failings”, but Labour’s accusations on antisemitism were first called four years ago and have never been addressed properly, yet. The Rabbi regrets that receiving 673 complaints, of antisemitism in ten months, they dismissed only 12 members. Not enough. As a conclusion, he writes: “We must not let Corbyn’s Labour Party poison the values of this great country,” clearly meaning: vote for whomever you wish but don’t vote for him.

On the same days, a key Shadow Cabinet ally of Jeremy Corbyn was involved in an antisemitism accusation after claims he had sung the Beatles hit “Hey Jude” changing the original lyrics and saying “Hey Jews”. This behaviour was supposed to take place during a coach journey in March 2018. Corbyn confirmed Labour was probing the allegations claimed by the Buzzfeed website. Talking to Twitter, Mr Carden categorically denied everything about it.

Last, but not least, come the WhatsApp text was widely spread to the UK Hindus urging them to vote against Labour accusing the party of being “Anti-India” and “Anti-Hindu”. The message said that Corbyn’s party is now the “mouthpiece of the Pakistani government”, as a consequence, all the Indians still voting for them are officially considered traitors to their ancestral land, to their family and friends.

Tony Blair plays his game 

Last February, Jewish MP Luciana Berger blamed ‘institutional’ anti-Semitism and decided to quit the Labour Party to join Change UK. “For anyone who might look to play this down, the threshold to initiate this process is extremely high. That the Labour Party has even met the evidentiary threshold is damning,” she said.

Luciana Berger decided to stand up as a candidate for the Lib Dems; after announcing her decision, former PM, Tony Blair, condemned the fact that she had been driven out of their party over Corbyn’s failure to tackle the whip and wished her “very well” at the polls.

Blair was later involved in an unpleasant statement. A Labour candidate for Pudsey in West Yorkshire compared celebrating his death to cheering the death of Adolf Hitler. Later, she apologized for causing offense.

Tories’ accusation of racism and sexism

Are the people that voted for Brexit asking for a monocultural country? Based on the perspective that xenophobia and racism have always existed but to some extent, the matter has never been addressed, Brexit has had an evident impact on this issue. Racism has never disappeared even if people have thought it; xenophobia has increased and becoming an independent nation is what Brexit voters claimed.

More importantly, even though the issue of Brexit is set to dominate the December vote, many Jewish voters, even those opposed to the Conservative vow to take Britain out of Europe, feel they cannot vote for Labour.

Which alternative do they have? Labour’s strategy is to point out that Johnson is himself a populist, Islamophobe. After the exodus of more moderate Conservatives, the party has become more extremist and is now led by a man accused of being a racist. Johnson is still facing this accusation after in a newly unearthed 2007 book, “The Dream of Rome”, he wrote that the religion has left Muslim countries “centuries behind” the Western world.

Last year, he said that full-face veils should not be banned, but it was “absolutely ridiculous” women chose to “go around looking like letterboxes and bank robbers”. He has always defended his words adding that the backlash against them was just a “confected indignation at his strong views on Brexit”. According to a research conducted by the monitoring group Tell Mama, Islamophobic incidents rose by 375% due to the fact that  his words were repeated by racists abusing Muslims on the streets and online.

Accusations of a rising politics of hate and divisions are still staining this snap political campaign. “The climate for British Muslims in the Conservative Party is hostile”. Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, former co-chair of the Conservative Party (2010-2012), lawyer  and member of the House of Lords, attacked her parliamentary colleagues for failing to deal with alleged Islamophobia within the Conservatives and called on the PM to hold an independent inquiry saying she was shocked that her colleagues didn’t understand that issue and didn’t take it seriously.

“What really disappoints me in all of this, is that we’ve quite rightly been calling out the Labour for all the allegations of racism within their ranks, we seem to be able to see that form of racism and yet we singularly fail to deal with the Islamophobia and racism within our backyard,” she said interviewed by Channel 4.

There’s also another issue going on inside the Conservative Party. Some of the most senior female Tory MPs decided to quit, others were forced out or decided to stand down at the general election because they claimed the party was changing. “There’s definitely a whiff of toxic masculinity around at the top of the Tory party, at the moment,” a senior Conservative said.

As a consequence, the party that returns to the Commons after 12 December will be very different: more right-wing, more hardline Eurosceptic and quite possibly, let’s say, more male.

When the Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd decided to quit the cabinet and resign the Conservative whip in solidarity with Tory MPs who had had the whip removed for opposing a hard Brexit, she explained that she could not stand by while “loyal, moderate MPs were purged from the party.” She also condemned Mr Johnson’s language claiming that it was dangerous and could incite violence against opponents. She described him as part of the “cult of the strongman” that is sweeping the world, referring to the so-called “alpha male thing” she was warning about, before Johnson became leader.

A recent poll for the centre-right think tank Onward found that only 8% of young women would vote Conservative, compared with 22% of young men.

This could also explain the reason why the Tories are now trying to ensure that more female candidates are parachuted into safe seats, at the last minute.

A strong leadership would not guarantee victory

One novelty in this election is the appearance of high-profile independents and switchers, most of whom are strongly associated with the Remain cause. That’s why, ignoring half the electorate, whether they are Remainers, women, Jewish, or member of every kind of minority could be dangerous for every party now trying to recover its lost support.

As usual, the result of this election will be determined by the performance in individual seats rather than the national vote share and this is the reason why things may get even more complicated. The first-past-the-post rule will guarantee the victory more then the big leadership and Brexit will be its driving force.

According to the most recent poll published by YouGov (2-8 November), Tories are on 39%, 13% ahead of Labour on 26% followed by Lib Dems on 17%.

Without a majority in the House of Commons, Boris Johnson  could struggle to remain PM if the opposition all combined forces to defeat him, even if Labour wins fewer seats. Labour perfectly knows it doesn’t even need to win many seats to send Jeremy Corbyn to Downing Street. But we should not forget sources said that up to 20 Labour MPs would act immediately after polling day to ensure that Mr Corbyn has no chance of leading a government supported by other parties.

Nigel Farage has announced he will no longer fight 600 seats across the UK as his party will stand down against the 317 seats the Tories won at the last elections. The Brexit Party’s decision not to stand in Conservative-held seats superficially seems like good news for the Tories, elsewhere it is not clear whether this decision would end up helping Labour or the Lib Dems.

L'articolo Is Great Britain Still the Land of Opportunities?  proviene da InsideOver.

Even though the upcoming British general election was instigated by Brexit, its outcome will be determined by several factors as the fear of post-election political impasse continues to grow. Already many political analysts have warned that the situation is quite uncertain with the likely outcome being a hung parliament with Conservatives as the largest party, a hung parliament without a clear winner or a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn.

So far most opinion polls have given Boris Johnson’s Conservative party a comfortable lead of 37% against Labour’s 24%. With this kind of lead the Tories can be assured of a decisive majority in the House of Commons which would allow them to easily pass the Brexit deal negotiated by Johnson in Brussels.

The only reservation is that opinion polls are no longer accurate judging by previous results. A case in hand was the 2015 elections when pollsters suggested a hung parliament but Tories ended up with a majority. In the 2016 Referendum most polls predicted a victory for Remain but when the actual results came out, Leave was ahead with 51% while Remain was at 48.1%. In general, out of the 168 opinion polls conducted, only 16 predicted the accurate results.

Therefore, although the opinion polls have created a public perception of a possible Tory victory, the following factors are likely to play a great role in determining which party forms the next government.

Brexit

Withdrawal from the EU has been a major electoral weapon by the two parties to win votes. Corbyn has promised that if Labour wins the elections he will renegotiate Johnson’s deal and put it to a referendum which would allow people to choose to leave or remain. He is, however, facing rebellion in his party where over 25 MPs have warned him that another referendum would be a waste of money and would result in the party losing its support base. Furthermore, some members of his party believe that Brexit should be cancelled and that Britain should remain in the EU. Corbyn is trying to avoid antagonising the two camps in his party by steering away from the Brexit debate and focusing more on other domestic issues such as the NHS to win votes.

Boris Johnson has abandoned his earlier threat of a no-deal in a well-calculated move by the Conservatives to attract Liberal Democrat party voters who are opposed to a second Brexit referendum, and also to allay fear among Remainers in the Conservative party who are considering voting for the Liberal Democratic party. Instead, the Prime Minister is pledging to deliver Brexit as soon as possible by passing his deal through parliament after elections. As the outgoing Culture Secretary told the Times: “If you vote Conservative at this election, you’re voting to leave with this deal, and no deal has been effectively been taken off the table.”

Alliances

Pacts whether failed or successful will have a major influence on the outcome of the elections. One of the most discussed pacts was the one proposed by Nigel Farage, the leader of Brexit party, to Boris Johnson suggesting a “Leave alliance”  between the two parties.  His only condition was that Boris should drop his Brexit deal and in return the Brexit party would not field candidates in most Conservative constituencies. Unsurprisingly this proposal received the backing of US President Donald Trump who urged Boris and Nigel to join hands and form an “unstoppable force” to prevent Corbyn from taking over the premiership. However, the proposal was rejected by Boris who stated, that he wouldn’t enter into an election pact with any party. Farage reacted to Johnson’s refusal of his suggestion by announcing that his party would be fielding candidates in all constituencies during the elections. The likely effects of this on the final results of the election is that, leave votes will be divided between the Brexit party and Conservatives,  thus allowing Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn to form a government.

Demographics

In Britain factors such as age, ethnicity, geographical location and social status are major predictors of vote choice. Labour is likely to receive its support from young people, lowly skilled workers, people who live in council estates, and ethnic minorities. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are likely to draw their support from the old professionals working in the private sector. This is due to different factors according to Dr James Tilley who teaches political science at the University of Oxford. For example, old people are more likely to vote Conservatives because as people age they become more conservative and resistant to change. Young people will vote for Labour because of the increasing social liberalism, and the growth of tertiary institutions that impact on liberal values. However, It is also worth noting that some voters in the categories mentioned above do not follow the trends and are likely to vote the opposite way.

Geographically, the Conservatives have always enjoyed support in Scotland and North East of England. Nevertheless, this support has been on the decline mainly because of its failure to adapt to changing social and economic circumstances in Scotland. Many opinion polls are currently predicting that the Conservatives are likely to lose almost all their seats in Scotland to the Scottish National Party.

Ideology

The perception voters hold about a political party has a great influence on the election outcomes in Britain. The Conservative party has always been considered as the party of the rich and hostile to immigrants. Positively, the party has always been considered as a party that champions low taxation and also inspires economic growth. Its reputation as the party of the rich,  coupled with high austerity measures it introduced in the wake of a recession, will deny it support among the low-income earners, and immigrants.

Labour, on the other hand, is known for championing for social justice, worker’s rights, and state intervention. That’s why it draws great support from the working class,  ethnic minorities, immigrants, and low-income earners who partly depend on social support.

To attract voters from these groups, Johnson is planning to get rid of some elements of the austerity measures introduced by the previous conservative governments.  He is promising to lift the freeze imposed on social benefits and also to raise working-age benefits.

Personal Performance

The popularity of the candidates and how they address local issues will have an impact. Boris Johnson as the current Prime Minister offers his party incumbency advantage over Labour. Although this gives him a head start over Corbyn, their success at the elections will depend on how they perform on the campaign trail and their plan to address local issues such as security, health and housing. At the moment National Health Service (NHS) is one of the main campaign items, with Boris Johnson promising to inject £1.8billion cash in the scheme.

According to Johnson, £850m would go to repairing 20 hospitals in England and upgrading dilapidated facilities and equipment. Corbyn has countered the pledge by promising that he would remove all traces of privatisation from the NHS, and warning that Johnson is likely to sell the NHS to Trump in a post-Brexit trade which could cost £500m a week. Some voters will compare the policies of the two parties on such key issues, then decide on how to vote.

L'articolo The Likely Determinants of the British General Election Results proviene da InsideOver.

The “Irish backstop” has been the major impediment towards the success of Brexit negotiations, between the EU and the UK. The controversy surrounding this stems from the 1998 Good Friday Agreement that was signed as part of the Northern Ireland peace process. To achieve and maintain peace, the agreement called for the enhancement of cross border cooperation between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and the “‘normalisation'” of relations between Protestant and Catholic communities within and across the two territories after years of conflicts.

This led to the withdrawal of British troops from the Irish border, to allow free movement of goods and people between Ireland and Northern Ireland. However the results of the 2016 Brexit referendum, presented a new challenge to the Irish open border as UK began taking steps to take control of its borders.

This sparked fear among Irish leaders who felt that the introduction of border checks after Brexit could revive old divisions and jeopardise the peace process. After taking note of the complaints, both the UK and EU agreed that any Brexit deal should include a “backstop” to keep the border open, for the sake of the Good Friday Agreement.

The issue of the backstop became a major obstacle when the former British Prime Minister, Theresa May, brought to parliament an agreement she had negotiated. The agreement stated that after Brexit, the UK was to remain a member of the EU single market and custom’s union for a certain duration of time for businesses to adjust and also enable the Government to negotiate for new trade deals with the European Union.

The Irish backstop was to be introduced after this transition period and before the conclusion of negotiations on new trade agreements. According to the backstop, Northern Ireland was to remain a member of the EU single market until new trade deals to keep the border invisible were reached. This essentially meant that no checks were to be carried on the Irish border for a certain duration. The only downside of this was that, although the aim was to keep Northern Irish border open for the sake of peace and also to minimise economic damage, it also meant that the UK was to remain under EU laws for some time after Brexit.

The deal was, however, rejected by many Conservatives who argued that the backstop would trap the UK in the EU and also block it from making trade agreements with non-EU countries. The Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland also refused to endorse it claiming it would leave Northern Ireland in a different customs arrangement to the rest of the UK. Boris Johnson who was then serving as Foreign Minister resigned from the government claiming that the UK was headed “for the status of a colony” if Theresa May’s soft Brexit proposal sailed through.

“Since I cannot in all conscience champion these proposals, I have sadly concluded that I must go,” said Boris in his resignation letter. The impasse over led to the eventual resignation of Theresa May as Prime Minister in mid this year.

On 19 August, the new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, after failing to make any headway in his attempts to deliver Brexit, attacked the Northern Irish backstop describing it as “anti-democratic and inconsistent with the sovereignty of the UK” and a risk to the delicate balance embodied in the Good Friday Agreement. In his letter to the EU, he urged the Union to come up with new terms which would allow the UK to achieve a Brexit deal, pointing out that the backstop could not form part of an agreed Withdrawal Agreement. Instead, he proposed replacing the backstop with what he called “flexible and creative” arrangements which would ensure a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland after Brexit.

For a time it seemed as if a deal was unlikely as Boris maintained his do or die stance of delivering Brexit by the 31 October. But now more than ever, there’s a glimmer of hope following the successful talks between him and Ireland’s Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar on the question of the backstop. In what could signal a major concession both the British Government and the European Union have now agreed to intensify negotiations over Boris Johnson’s proposal to see if it could lead to a Brexit deal over the remaining weeks. Although the backstop proposal has remained a secret, the Times stated that under it, Britain would collect tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods ending up in Northern Ireland and companies could claim rebates. “Northern Ireland effectively stays in the EU’s customs union but for trade, it’s in the UK’s customs union,” a source familiar with the proposal told the Times.

But in what could be a major blow to the British Prime Minister’s efforts to get a last-minute deal, Mr Nigel Dodds the deputy leader of Northern Ireland’s unionist party DUP, has trashed the proposal saying “it cannot work.” In an interview with an Italian paper La Repubblica, he said “ Northern Ireland must stay in a full UK customs union. Full stop.” This is contrary to the reconciliatory note struck by Boris and Mr Varadkar, Ireland’s Prime Minister.

Whether a deal is achievable within the few remaining days, is still subject of debate. The EU Council Donald Tusk although expressing some optimism warned”. No guarantee of success and the time is practically up.” The truth is that in case Boris Johnson fails to get a deal, Northern Ireland would come under the same customs and regulatory standards as the UK, while its neighbour, Ireland, remain under the EU. This would lead to a hard border thus undermining the Good Friday agreement according to experts.

L'articolo The “Irish Backstop” Problem Hindering Brexit proviene da InsideOver.

British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has vowed to bring the UK out of the European Union on Oct 31, despite a law compelling him to ask for an extension. Although many opposition politicians and Conservative rebels have maintained that there’s no way he can bypass the law, his aides led by Mr Dominic Cummings insist that there are loopholes that can and will be exploited to bring the UK out of the EU with or without a deal.

So what are the options available for Boris? According to sources, after failing to call for an election which would have given him a new mandate, the Prime Minister is considering collapsing his own government by resigning as Prime Minister together with his cabinet ministers on October 18, thus triggering a General Election which is likely to take place in December 2019. Since the campaign period would cover October 31, the day on which UK is to leave the EU, the responsibility of writing a letter to the EU requesting for Brexit extension would fall upon the speaker of parliament.

Confident of winning any election, Boris hopes he would then come back again as Prime Minister having avoided requesting for an extension. The only downside of this is that immediately after the resignation of the Prime Minister, the law requires that the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, should try to form a government within 14 days, and that it is only if he fails that an election can be held. But with smaller parties strategizing on how to back Corbyn, there’s a likelihood of him becoming the Prime Minister thus thwarting Boris Johnson’s attempt of returning to no 10 Downing Street altogether.

Another tactic Boris is likely to use to force Brexit, is to have ministers sitting as a privy council to suspend the law which requires him to ask for an extension. According to Sir John Major who once served as British Prime Minister, the Order of Council can be passed by government ministers without involving the Queen or Parliament. He, however, warned Boris against using the tactic saying, “I should warn the Prime Minister that, if this route is taken, it will be in flagrant defiance of Parliament and utterly disrespectful to the Supreme Court, It would be a piece of political chicanery that no-one should ever forgive or forget.”

Some have also claimed that Boris Johnson aims to incite violence then use it as an excuse to declare a state of emergency to avoid requesting for Brexit extension. Such actions would be derived from Civil Contingencies Act of 2004, which gives ministers powers to suspend the rule of law for 30 days in case of a crisis. “This could be in response to an event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of the United Kingdom or of a part of region,” The Sun said.

Former British Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, told Daily Mail that raising such fears are part of a well-planned scheme by Brexiteers to cause violence especially after the Prime Minister warned that there would be chaos if Brexit was not delivered. Also raising concerns about the tone of Boris’s speeches was Sir John Major who said, “The Government seems intent on whipping up dissent by using highly emotional and evocative language that can only provoke fear and anger, and fuel grievances against Parliament and the law.”

Last month the Daily Telegraph revealed another plan which involves the Prime Minister sending a letter to the EU requesting a Brexit extension but accompany it with another letter setting out that that the Government does not want any delay after Oct 31. The second letter would aim to cancel the first one. But legal experts have warned that a request for an extension, followed by a request of rejection would be in contempt of court. Former British Director of Public Prosecution, Ken MacDonald, recently warned: “The Act is very clear in what it requires the prime minister to do. If he sends a side letter to Brussels that deliberately conflicts with that requirement, he is definitely within breach of the law.”

Another warning came from the chair of Criminal Bar Association, who told the Guardian, “We cannot expect people not to rob, rape and murder when a government declares it may break the law. We cannot lay rape to the rule of law. As the CBA our role is not to say remain or leave but part of our role is to explain the law – criminal law – and play our part in upholding the rule of law.”

Other plans suggested by Boris Johnson’s Chief strategist Mr Dominic Cummings include hoodwinking MPs into to voting for a deal but not table the necessary legislation for that deal to become law. According to SKY there are also plans to argue that the act forcing the Prime Minister to ask for an extension is unlawful under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. It remains to be seen which plan Boris Johnson will use to skirt around the so-called “Benn Act” to deliver Brexit without breaking the law.

L'articolo Boris Johnson’s Game Plan For Brexit proviene da InsideOver.

Last week the curtains came down on Thomas Cook, a British global travel group which has existed for almost 178 years. The liquidation left thousands of passengers stranded in various destination and 21,000 people jobless.

The main reason given for the company’s collapse and subsequent entrance into compulsory liquidation, was because it had failed to secure funds from its bankers to pay its losses that had accumulated to £1.5bn. According to a statement issued by the company during the middle of this year, part of the losses were as a result of the political uncertainties surrounding Brexit which placed enormous pressure on the sterling pound, making it expensive for British citizens to travel abroad for holiday.

It also blamed other factors in the macro-environment such as the unusual heatwave that struck Europe last year and political instability in its key destinations in the Middle East and parts of Africa. Also, the Guardian noted other factors such as high prices of jet fuel and hotels pushing up costs as having contributed towards the collapse of Thomas Cook.

To deliver itself from financial woes, the company came to an agreement with a Chinese investment company, called FOSUN international. According to the deal, FOSUN was to own 75% of Thomas Cook’s tour division and 25% of its airline division, all for £450. An additional £200m was to come from lenders among them Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds.

However, after long periods of negotiations, the lenders refused to give Thomas Cook the much needed £200, since they had already provided it with a £675m overdraft. Further attempts to have the government bailout the company were rejected by Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who warned that bailing out the firm would have set a dangerous precedent. He also added that there was a need for firms to face the ‘moral hazard’ of knowing that they could not expect to be bailed out by the state. This effectively led to the collapse of, Thomas Cook, one of the world’s top travel company’s.

However, according to experts, the reasons for Thomas Cook’s loses were much deeper and could have been corrected if the company had acted in time. They ranged from mismanagement to failure to adapt to emerging changes. In 2018 Audit firm Ernest Young warned the company to stop an “accounting method that made its profits appear larger, and which gave leeway for bonuses of its top executives’ to be boosted. This was when the company reported a profit of £250m before tax, and wrote off £150m costs as exception, while reporting an operating profit as £97m.

Some of the company’s top executives have already been accused of pocketing a total of £47 million over the last ten years as the company’s debt continued to grow. Among those who questioned the hefty bonuses awarded to the top executives was Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who said: “I have questions for one about whether it’s right that the directors, or whoever, the board, should pay themselves large sums when businesses can go down the tubes like that.”

But the biggest mistake Thomas Cook did was to become so comfortable with its brand that it failed to see and adapt itself to the emerging changes in the environment. Air travellers have become less loyal since the internet has given them a platform to compare tickets and review services. In an environment where all travel companies offer the same services, it is only through understanding customer needs then adapting to meet them effectively that a company will be able to have a competitive advantage over its rivals. This will enable it to maintain its customers and attract new ones thus boosting revenue.

Adapting means an organisation is developing and deploying its resources to sustain and enhance its competitive advantage, and configuring its costs and assets to march the changes. While many travel agencies realised how the internet has revolutionised the buying process and adjusted their models to reflect changing times, Thomas Cook failed to act. For example, when customers moved from high street travel agencies to the internet, Thomas Cook continued to operate travel agency shops in high streets. As the Guardian put it, “An old business model, with expensive to run high-street branches, could not compete in the age of the internet – when customers try to find their own holidays online.”

Forbes blames the internet and sharing economy as main factors saying, “in the age of the sharing economy, Thomas Cook continued to own “550 travel agency shops, 200 hotels with 40,000 rooms, and 105 aircrafts,“ adding that even its branded currency-exchange shops at airport “became increasingly less relevant, as many travellers changed less cash and used convenient, foreign transaction fee-free credit cards.”

The American Bureau of Labour Statistics notes that the use of the internet for booking trips and researching holiday destination is not going to stop any time soon, and only travel agents who deliver unique customer experiences by specialising in specific destinations or targeting specific travellers are the only ones who are likely to survive.

According to Forbes “this could mean focusing on travel to a particular area, working with a particular clientele or offering a particular type of experience (how about a destination wedding?) Such advisers can and do charge fees for their knowledge, attention to detail and concierge-level service.“

L'articolo Thomas Cook Failed To See And Act On Emerging Changes proviene da InsideOver.

What drives a young man from his privileged life to the killing fields of Syria and Iraq? Morality, says Jack Letts – “why do I have this nice life, and others don’t?” – and a sense of Muslim duty. He had converted as a teenager, and when so-called Islamic State (IS) issued their call to arms, ‘Jihadi Jack’ was quick to answer. Now, imprisoned among the smouldering ruins of the broken caliphate, he awaits his fate.   

Detained as he fled the Battle of Raqqa, 23-years-old Letts has been in Kurdish custody since 2017. He is one of 800 foreign nationals imprisoned by the People’s Protection Units (YPG), swept up as the ill-fated caliphate collapsed. Facing renewed attacks from regrouped IS militants – and lacking the infrastructure or judicial capacity to hold their inmates indefinitely – the Kurds are calling on Western nations to repatriate their incarcerated fighters.  

Britain has shown little interest in playing ball. Like dozens of other IS-aligned UK nationals, Letts has had his citizenship summarily revoked. It’s a power reserved to “counter the terrorist threat” and “keep our country safe,” said the government, and one that can only be invoked when an individual holds dual-citizenship (a person can’t be rendered stateless under international law). Jack is Canadian through his father John, who condemned the government’s move as a ‘kick in the gut’.

Canada’s official response wasn’t much cheerier. Ottawa is “disappointed” in London’s “unilateral action to off-load their responsibilities,” said public safety minister Ralph Goodale. His government’s position is clear: Letts was radicalised in the UK, and it was from there that he departed for the Middle East, so he should be Britain’s problem. It’s a valid argument, but outmanoeuvred in the realm of international law, Letts’s future is now a Canadian issue.    

In practice, this means little for the young jihadi’s hopes of deliverance. While acknowledging his citizenship, Ottawa has said it has “no legal obligation to facilitate [his] return”, insisting that it won’t risk the safety of consular staff to pluck Letts from prison. The procession of journalists who’ve gained access to the young man suggests it may not be such an onerous task – but for the 33 Canadians festering behind Syrian bars, their country’s decision seems final.

Canada and the UK’s mutual reluctance to recover IS detainees reflects a general hesitation among Western nations. Buckling under the pressure of over 5,000 IS inmates, Kurdish jailers are desperate to lighten the load of foreign fighters. They’ve floated the idea of international tribunals, a move that would ensure suspects receive free and fair hearings. But with public opinion staunchly against jihadi defectors, there’s minimal appetite to offer them a Western prison cell – let alone a shot at exoneration.      

The risk of acquittal is a major concern for those fighting repatriation efforts. Criminality undertaken overseas is often difficult to prove in domestic courts, with evidence sparse or inadmissible. The USA has seen some IS recruits imprisoned – one man received a 20-year sentence – but others have walked for lack of proof. Letts acknowledges that he fought with the caliphate, but maintains that he neither killed nor enslaved in its name; whether he would be found guilty by a Canadian court is unclear. 

And there’s little certainty his case would even reach trial. Facilitating foreign terror is illegal under Canada’s criminal code, but only if the suspect departs from Canadian soil – Letts’s jihadi journey started in the UK. This judicial hurdle could well see him returned to North America for prosecution, only to walk free on a technicality. Letts was, by his own admission, ready to commit a suicide bombing in Syria; despite his repentance, society is unlikely to condone the freedom of such a character. 

With an election looming, the court of public opinion is more important than ever. Already Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has rowed back on the issue of IS returnees, calculating that his typically softer line will lose votes. “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian,” he said upon taking office in 2015, before repealing a terror law that allowed for the stripping of citizenship. Hemmed in by Conservative leader Andrew Scheer’s vow to never “lift a finger” to assist Letts, Trudeau has made clear that his team won’t be involving themselves with the young man, citizen or not. 

But to disregard repatriation entirely – however politically cogent – is a dangerous path to take, analysts warn. “If freed [from Syrian prisons], those still devoted to [IS] could reconnect with cells in the region or pay smugglers to help them reach Europe,” says Leah West, Amarnath Amarasingam, and Jessica Davis, a group of Canadian security experts. “Once free, these individuals could engage in further terrorist activity such as financing, recruitment, radicalisation and, of course, terrorist attacks”. 

Having experienced IS’s butchery first-hand, Letts claims to have turned his back on such extremism. Joining the group was “probably the stupidest” decision of his life, he acknowledges, arguing that his interest now lies in helping others deradicalise. But, at present, it seems doubtful he’ll ever be given that chance – redemption isn’t dished out generously, especially to those with a terrorist past. 

L'articolo ‘Jihadi Jack’ Loses British Citizenship For IS Involvement proviene da InsideOver.

Tanzania’s president, John Magufuli, known for his anti-corruption stance, but also his growing politically repressive, authoritarian regime, has called for a lift of “illegal” economic sanctions against Zimbabwe.

Speaking at the end of the 39^th Southern African Development Community (SADC) summit of Heads of State and Government, in the capital of the United Republic of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, he said: “As we are all aware, this brotherly and sisterly country has been on sanctions for a long time.

“These sanctions have not only affected the people of Zimbabwe and their Government but our entire [Southern African] region,” he continued.

“It is like a human body: when you chop one of its parts, it affects the whole body. Therefore, I would like to seize this opportunity to urge the international community to lift up sanctions it imposed on Zimbabwe. This brotherly country, after all, has now opened a new chapter and it is ready to engage with the rest of the world.

“It is, therefore, I believe, in the interest of all parties concerned to see these sanctions removed. In this respect, I wish also to urge all SADC member states to continue to speak with one voice on the issue of Zimbabwe.”

The SADC hopes to lobby the African Union chairperson, Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to address the sanctions at the 74^th United Nations General Assembly in September 2019.

The Zimbabwean government, earlier this year, claimed that drought and climate change had affected its economy. It sought out $331.5 million in food aid, to offset the effects of drought and Cyclone Idai. In total, the country appealed for $613 million of humanitarian aid from local and foreign donors, including the US.

The executive secretary of the SADC, Dr Stergomena Lawrence Tax, claimed that the sanctions are suppressing economic growth in Zimbabwe and the Southern African region. In a communiqué, read out loud during the summit, Dr Tax called for the “immediate lifting of sanctions to facilitate socio-economic recovery in the country.”

“Paying for it”

In 2000, former Zimbabwean president, Robert Mugabe, seized farms from thousands of farmers in Zimbabwe, forcing many to leave the country.

“If white settlers just took the land from us without paying for it, we can, in a similar way, just take it from them without paying for it,” he said. Mugabe’s controversial plans exacerbated long racial and colonial tension between Zimbabwe and Britain.

Two years after seizing white-owned land, the EU imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe in 2002, by Common Position 2002/145/CFSP. The EU claimed that these sanctions were “in relation to the escalation of violence and intimidation of political opponents and the harassment of the independent press.” The sanctions included an arms embargo, an asset freeze and a travel ban on targeted people and entities. It was later amended to Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 and Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP.

Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly in 2011, President Mugabe addressed the EU-imposed sanctions.

“When we in Zimbabwe sought to redress the ills of colonialism and racism by fully acquiring our natural resources, mainly our land and minerals, we were, and still are, subjected to unparalleled vilification and pernicious economic sanctions, the false reasons alleged being violations of the rule of law, human rights and democracy,” he said.

Zimbabwe’s people condemned those illegal sanctions, and thanked the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Union for demanding their immediate removal. Africans were also concerned about the International Criminal Court, which seemed to exist only for alleged offenders of the developing world, the majority of them Africans. Leaders of powerful Western States guilty of international crimes were routinely ignored, thereby eroding the Court’s credibility.

Amidst calls to remove the West’s “illegal” sanctions against Zimbabwe, the SADC leaders also signed three Development Cooperation Programmes with the EU. The programmes include: Support to Improving the Investment and Business Environment (SIBE), Trade Facilitation Programme (TFP), and Support to Industrialisation and Productive Sectors (SIPS). They are totalled at €47million over a five year period.

L'articolo Southern Africa Urges International Community to Remove Economic Sanctions on Zimbabwe proviene da InsideOver.