Voices: How one suspended HSBC executive admitted the chilling truth behind greenwashing


Donnachadh McCarthy
Mon, June 13, 2022


This evoked the ultimate left-wing caricature of evil, scruples-free capitalism (AFP/Getty)

Climate protectors around the world owe Stuart Kirk, the suspended head of “Responsible Investment” at HSBC Asset Management, a huge thank you.

In an extraordinary speech to the Moral Money Conference, organised by the FT a few weeks ago, he admitted the chilling truth behind greenwashing. He declared HSBC’s “commitment” to net-zero carbon emissions in 2050, while simultaneously pouring billions into expanding fossil fuel infrastructure. His speech on Youtube is a must see.

For me this evoked the ultimate left-wing caricature of evil, scruples-free capitalism.

Kirk complained that “unsubstantiated, shrill, partisan, self-serving apocalyptic warnings were always wrong”, citing the Millenium bug crisis as an example. He declared that despite all the dire warnings, nothing happened, conveniently ignoring the decade-long global work and billions of investment to stop the crisis.

Stuart Kirk whined that “there is always some nutjob telling me about the end of the world,” and went on to say at one point: “Who cares if Miami is 6 feet underwater in 100 years? Amsterdam has been for years and it’s a really nice place.”

He dismissed the destruction from California wildfires as just a 1 per cent cost of the state budget. He asserted there was no extra financial benefit from investing in renewable energy over coal, and dismissed the threat of stranded financial assets if governments actually acted on carbon emissions.

As he chillingly put it “At a big bank like ours, the average loan term is 6 years. What happens to the planet in year 7 is actually irrelevant. I don’t care.”

Kirk thus provides clear evidence for the infuriated UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s accusation that our governments and businesses are disastrously lying to us on climate action.

HSBC, despite its “commitment” to net-zero, invested $130 billion in fossil fuels since the Paris Climate Agreement was signed in 2016, according to a RAN report. Their 2021 investment of $19.9 billion, was exactly the same as the $19.9 billion in 2016.

I asked HSBC some questions.

Were any executives who publicly dissociated themselves from Kirk’s remarks, among those who signed off on the presentation? Which HSBC executives were on Kirk’s appointment panel? Was Kirk appointed because he held views opposed to reducing coal and fossil fuel investments?

Don’t HSBC investments of $130 billion since 2016 not demonstrate that Kirk was telling the truth, and that HSBC CEO Noel Quinn was dissembling when he dissociated himself with Kirk’s remarks?

They refused to answer my specific questions.

But they sent a response back saying: “The remarks made do not reflect the views of HSBC Asset Management nor HSBC Group in any way. HSBC regards climate change as one of the most serious emergencies facing the planet, and is committed to achieving net zero by 2050.”

As Kirk specifically attacked Mark Carney, the founder of GFANZ, the UN climate banking initiative, I also asked GFANZ:

“The fact that HSBC invested the same in fossil fuels in 2021 as it did in 2016, indicates HSBC’s de facto actions more likely reflect Kirk’s presentation. Therefore, does HSBC’s presence on the GFANZ Board of Principals not make a mockery of the project?”

They responded by saying: “HSBC’s strategy and Mr Kirk’s remarks are a matter for HSBC. It would be inappropriate to comment, given the ongoing disciplinary process.”

Just Stop Oil, hundreds of whose climate protectors have been arrested calling for a ban on new fossil fuels, told us that : “Why does he [Kirk] think NASA scientists are freaking out? No previous market trends, no agricultural yields, no fire or flood event can be used as a yardstick for what is coming down the line”.

Kirk’s speech is a siren call to move our bank accounts away from banks funding fossil fuelled destruction, as an urgent moral imperative.

But individual action is not enough. Demand that your local council, and any businesses or charities that you are connected with, do likewise. Last week, I persuaded a foundation to move its £45 million reserves away from HSBC, following the RAN report on their fossil investments.

Who could you persuade to move their bank accounts this year?

GLOBALIZATION 2.0

Apple suppliers are fighting over 160,000 Vietnamese workers as more Chinese competitors set up shop in the Southeast Asian country

Weilun Soon
Mon, June 13, 2022

Young Liu, chairman and CEO of Foxconn.

Ceng Shou Yi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Apple's top iPhone maker Foxconn said its Chinese rivals were poaching its workers in Vietnam.

Vietnam has 31 companies that employ 160,000 workers to manufacture and assemble Apple products.

Apple wants to reduce reliance on China and has been urging suppliers there to expand into Vietnam.

A battle for talent is heating up for the 160,000 workers who assemble Apple's products in Vietnam, with a top iPhone assembler crying foul over how its Chinese rivals are attempting to attract cheap labor in the Southeast Asian country.

Young Liu, the CEO and chair of Foxconn, the world's largest iPhone maker, told reporters on Saturday he noticed the company's Chinese competitors were setting up campuses near its base in Vietnam to get closer to its workers.

"When our competitors found out where Foxconn was building our factory, they went to buy a piece of land next to ours, so that they could ride on our coattails and poach our talents with high salaries," Liu said, according to Bloomberg.

Per the outlet, Liu said that the company's Bac Ninh City campus currently employs around 60,000 workers, but that he plans to "significantly" increase that number over the next two years.

Foxconn did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comments.

China-based manufacturers have been grappling with increasing production costs in the country, and many are attracted by Vietnam for its abundance of cheap and skilled labor, according to an investment report from AXA Investment Management released in September.

At least three Chinese suppliers plan to assemble more Apple products in Vietnam. BYD will begin producing iPads in Vietnam this month, per Nikkei Asia. Luxshare ICT and Goertek are also setting up shop in Vietnam to assemble AirPods, Apple analyst Kuo Ming-Chi said in a tweet in May.

They'll join the current crop of 31 companies — employing around 160,000 workers — that currently produce Apple products in Vietnam, according to Saigon Online.

For Apple, there are strategic considerations as it looks to reduce its reliance on China for product assembly. In 2020, Apple requested Foxconn to start making MacBooks and iPads in the Southeast Asian country, citing a need to minimize the impact of US-China trade tensions, per Reuters.

China's tough stance on COVID-19 was another reason for Apple's push into Vietnam, according to a Wall Street Journal report last month. The company recently said that China's COVID-19 restrictions in China could cost it $4 billion to $8 billion in revenue for the current quarter ending June. Foxconn had to shut down operations in Shenzhen for a few days in March as the city tried to tackle a spike in COVID-19 cases.

Opinion: Right to bear arms does not include assault-style weapons

Michael C. Burton

Austin American-Statesman
Sun, June 12, 2022


In the wake of the deadliest mass shooting in Texas that snuffed out the lives of 19 children and two adults, our state leaders have told us deadly combat-style weapons had little to do with the massacre. NRA officials claim limitations on the Second Amendment will infringe on the right of law-abiding citizens to own weapons, but they oppose any restrictions on dangerous people from legally purchasing these weapons.

In Texas, an 18-year-old boy not old enough to drink alcohol can go to a nearby sporting goods store and buy a semiautomatic assault-style weapon designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible (Gov. Abbott doesn’t distinguish the difference between a hunting rifle or shotgun and a rapid-fire, semi-automatic weapon like the AR-15 that can fire either 30 or 60 rounds a minute).

What these gun advocates believe, ingrained in the NRA culture, is that the right to bear arms is absolute. Before 2008, when a conservative US. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that there was an individual right under the U.S. Constitution to own a firearm, courts had consistently ruled that this right belonged to a state-organized militia. But in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, the conservative Supreme Court majority concluded that the amendment protected a private right of individuals to own a firearm for self-defense.

Reggie Daniels pays his respects at a memorial to the 21 people klled at Robb Elementary School, Thursday, June 9, in Uvalde

In that majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the individual right to bear arms was not unlimited and has restrictions:

“We do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose,” Scalia stated.

Scalia went on to say the Second Amendment does not grant citizens to carry any weapon they wish. States can still ban prohibit “the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” or forbid “the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling concluded the right to bear arms does not include the right to carry “dangerous” weapons. And that ruling has been upheld by courts ever since.

Semiautomatic weapons with detachable high-capacity magazine clips designed for rapid-fire and combat use (sometimes referred to as “assault weapons”), once banned under U.S. law, are certainly dangerous and deadly, as they were designed for “maximum wound effect.” Put simply, these weapons are civilian versions of military assault weapons developed for a specific combat purpose: laying down a high-volume of fire over a wide killing zone. Sporting rifles don’t have this feature. This is why more deaths occur in mass killings with these type of weapons. In the decade after the federal assault weapons ban lapsed, America saw a 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent in fatalities.

Interestingly, the NRA claims there is no such thing as civilian assault weapons, but the gun lobby, in marketing these weapons to adults and juveniles, have in the past enthusiastically described these civilian versions as “assault rifles,” “assault pistols” and “military assault weapons” to boost sales. Now they claim that the only true assault weapon is an automatic weapon like a machine gun, which is already banned for civilian use.

High-capacity, semi-automatic assault weapons are dangerous, military-style guns that are designed to kill or wound the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time, and have no legitimate sporting use. The majority of Americans favor a ban on the sale of these military-style assault weapons and a ban on the sale of large-capacity magazines.

We just need the political will to do so.

Burton is a freelance writer living in Garland and author of John Henry Faulk: The Making of a Liberated Mind, a biography of Texas folklorist and First Amendment champion John Henry Faulk.

This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Opinion: Right to bear arms does not include assault-style weapons

Many baby formula plants weren't inspected because of COVID


 Baby formula is displayed on the shelves of a grocery store in Carmel, Ind. on May 10, 2022. A bill introduced early June, 2022, would require the Food and Drug Administration to inspect infant formula facilities every six months. U.S. regulators have historically inspected baby formula plants at least once a year, but they did not inspect any of the three biggest manufacturers in 2020. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy, File) 

MATTHEW PERRONE
Sun, June 12, 2022

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. regulators have historically inspected baby formula plants at least once a year, but they did not inspect any of the three biggest manufacturers in 2020, according to federal records reviewed by The Associated Press.

When they finally did get inside an Abbott Nutrition formula plant in Michigan after a two-year gap, they found standing water and lax sanitation procedures. But inspectors offered only voluntary suggestions for fixing the problems, and issued no formal warning.

Inspectors would return five months later after four infants who consumed powdered formula from the plant suffered bacterial infections. They found bacterial contamination inside the factory, leading to a four-month shutdown and turning a festering supply shortage into a full-blown crisis that sent parents scrambling to find formula and forced the U.S. to airlift products from overseas.

The gap in baby formula plant inspections, brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, is getting new scrutiny from Congress and government watchdogs investigating the series of missteps that led to the crisis. A recent bill would require the Food and Drug Administration to inspect infant formula facilities every six months. And the government’s inspector general for health has launched an inquiry into the FDA’s handling of Abbott’s facility, the largest in the U.S.

Abbott resumed production at the plant early this month under a legally binding agreement with the FDA, but the shutdown and nationwide shortage exposed how concentrated the industry has become in the U.S., with a handful of companies accounting for roughly 90% of the market.

As COVID-19 swept across the U.S. in early 2020, the FDA pulled most of its safety inspectors from the field, skipping thousands of routine plant inspections.

The FDA did conduct more than 800 “mission critical” inspections during the first year of the pandemic, the agency said in a statement. Regulators selected facilities for inspections based on whether they carried a specific safety risk or were needed to produce an important medical therapy.

Only three of the nation’s 23 facilities that make, package or distribute formula made the cut. The FDA resumed routine inspections in July 2021.

The inspection records reviewed by the AP show gaps as large as 2 1/2 years between FDA’s 2019 inspections and when regulators returned to plants owned by the three leading formula manufacturers: Abbott, Reckitt and Gerber.

In fact, the FDA still has yet to return to one key plant owned by Reckitt and two owned by Gerber, according to agency records. All those facilities are operating around the clock to boost U.S. formula production.

“The FDA would have had more chances to catch these issues if they’d been inspecting during the pandemic,” said Sarah Sorscher, a food safety specialist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. She acknowledged the difficult trade-off the FDA faced in pulling its inspectors to reduce their exposure to COVID-19. “Certainly there was a price to pay for protecting their workers during that time.”

Baby formula manufacturers were “consistently identified as a high priority during the pandemic,” and there is currently no backlog of inspections, the agency told the AP in response to inquiries about the gaps. The agency said it skipped about 15,000 U.S. inspections due to COVID, but it has already made up about 5,000 of those, exceeding its own goals.

Under current law, the FDA is only required to inspect formula facilities every three to five years, but the agency has consistently inspected facilities annually — until the pandemic.

“Our top priority now is addressing the urgent need for infant formula in the U.S. market, and our teams are working night and day to help make that happen,” FDA stated.

But outside experts say the gap in inspections speaks to a blind spot in the government’s response effort, which was successful at preventing shortages of drugs and other medical supplies.

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf says regulators knew shutting down Abbott’s plant would create supply problems, but there was little evidence of urgency between when inspectors shuttered the plant in February and recent emergency measures to allow more imports from abroad.

Longtime food safety specialists see a deeper problem at the highest levels of the FDA, where physicians and medical scientists for decades have prioritized oversight of drugs and medical products over food.

“It’s very challenging for them to get engaged at all in this area because they don’t have the background, the knowledge and the experience in it,” said Steven Mandernach, executive director of the Association of Food and Drug Officials, which represents state-level inspectors.

The FDA shares oversight of food production and safety with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. FDA inspections of food facilities peaked in 2011 and have declined most years since, despite increased funds and powers by Congress. The FDA said that while U.S. inspections have declined, foreign facility inspections have increased.

There’s no certainty that extra inspections during COVID-19 would have prevented the contamination problems at the Sturgis, Michigan, plant that was shut down. And Abbott says that its products have not been directly linked to the infections, two of which were fatal.

But the plant did have earlier problems, including a 2010 formula recall due to possible contamination with insect parts.

“I think facilities that had known problems that could cause a food safety risk should have been part of FDA’s mission critical work,” Mandernach said. “And this facility would have been among those.”

Not having regular inspections — or even the threat of them — can lead to changes in culture at plants like Abbott’s, Mandernach noted.

“If you’re driving down the highway and you know the state troopers have been furloughed, might you go a little faster than if you knew there was a trooper on duty?" Mandernach asked.

___

Follow Matthew Perrone on Twitter: @AP_FDAwriter.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

U.S. Faces Tampon Shortage As Companies Struggle With Supply Chain Issues


Ben Blanchet

(Photo: via Associated Press)

With high demand and supply chain issues leading to a national shortage, tampons, like baby formula, have become another essential product that’s hard to find in U.S. stores.

The shortage, addressed in a Time report earlier this week, means that groups that collect menstrual hygiene products for economically disadvantaged people are seeing donations decline. It’s also created an opportunity for some Amazon sellers to hike up their prices, as Time reported.

Procter & Gamble, the producer of Tampax tampons, says it has experienced a 7.7% increase in demand since 2020, which it attributes to the success of an ad campaign that year with comedian Amy Schumer, according to Time.

Schumer shared a screenshot of a headline linking her to the shortage, and quipped that she doesn’t “even have a uterus,” a reference to her 2021 uterus removal due to endometriosis.

Other reasons for the shortage cited in the Time story include staffing issues and rising costs to get raw materials. The article also notes that because tampons are used by people with uteruses ― and many of the people who make “procurement and supply chain decisions” about feminine care products don’t use the products themselves ― there’s a possible gendered aspect to the tampon shortage because it simply may not be seen as a priority.

“It’s still hard to find anyone doing anything about the tampon shortage,” Time’s Alana Semuels writes, “even though tampons have been hard to find for the past six months.”

Aside from demand for Tampax, the average prices of menstrual pad and tampon boxes have increased in the year through late May, according to NielsenIQ data referenced by Bloomberg.

The price of menstrual pad boxes increased by 8.3% and the price of tampon boxes increased by nearly 10% in the year through late May, according to the data.

Companies such as CVS and Walgreens told Insider on Friday they are experiencing shortages of tampons in their stores.

A New York City-based pharmacist told Insider she’s never seen a shortage quite like the one this year.

“We use two companies [for tampons] and both of them are showing signs of backorder,” she said.

UK

Boris Johnson Announces Law to Overturn the Treaty Europe Signed With Boris Johnson


Dan Ladden-Hall
Mon, June 13, 2022, 

BREXIT BORIS

In its latest efforts to annoy the rest of Europe as spectacularly as possible, the British government put forward head-scratching new plans Monday to override a critical deal it reached with the European Union—after tortuous negotiations—just three years ago.

The unorthodox move has been variously alleged to threaten the integrity of the European Union (EU); the union of the United Kingdom; and even undermine the peace process on the island of Ireland.

Boris Johnson—a prime minister who narrowly survived a vote of no confidence after attending a series of lockdown-breaking parties in Downing Street—sees the rogue move differently, characterizing his explosive legislation as “a relatively trivial set of adjustments.”

Trouble has been brewing around what to do about Northern Ireland for months. Now, it seems, Johnson’s solution for breaking the deadlock is to scrap parts of one section of the deal known as the Northern Ireland Protocol. His Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, is expected to introduce legislation that can override parts of the Protocol into parliament on Monday.

Boris Johnson Badly Wounded but Narrowly Survives Jubilee Coup

The Northern Ireland Protocol is a trade deal which dictates how goods enter Northern Ireland from the rest of the U.K. after Brexit. It was agreed between the U.K. and the EU in 2019 and was designed to stop a hard border being placed between the Republic of Ireland (which is in the EU) and Northern Ireland (which is in the U.K.). This was vital to protect a 1998 peace deal which brought an end to decades of major sectarian violence in the region. Instead of a hard border, customs checks were imposed on goods moving from Britain to Northern Ireland.

But that has, in effect, divided the United Kingdom by creating a border in the Irish Sea between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland. Communities in Northern Ireland that strongly identify as British hate the arrangement, saying it effectively pushes them out of the U.K., and some British companies have even cut ties with Northern Ireland businesses due to the new paperwork. Pro-London lawmakers in Northern Ireland have even been blocking vital functions of Stormont, the region’s devolved assembly, until “action” has been taken on the protocol. And the row has also enraged Conservative politicians in Westminster. Johnson is now seeking to placate their demands for change.

The problem is, he’s doing so by trashing the agreement he made with the EU just three years ago. The EU has refused to bend to a new negotiation, citing the fact that Johnson agreed to the current arrangements. Brussels also fears for the integrity of the EU itself if it can’t control what enters its single market trade bloc. So in the face of EU stonewalling any mutual changes to the Protocol, it appears Johnson will attempt to override the agreement unilaterally—a move which some critics say could break international law and badly damage Britain’s reputation on the world stage.

“It's a bureaucratic change that needs to be made. Frankly it's a relatively trivial set of adjustments,” Johnson said in an LBC radio interview Monday. “All we are trying to do is have some bureaucratic simplifications between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” The Irish government, on the other hand, called Johnson’s proposed action “deeply damaging” which would represent a “low point” in his approach to Brexit.

The proposed legislation to override the Protocol will still need to get through the British parliament, which could take months. But if successful, the consequences for the U.K., Ireland, and the EU could be huge. London’s relationship with Washington may also come under strain as Biden has repeatedly made it clear that peace in Northern Ireland is a personal priority.

Britain defies EU with 'relatively trivial' N.Ireland law



Sun, June 12, 2022,
By Elizabeth Piper and Kate Holton

LONDON (Reuters) -Britain published plans on Monday to override some post-Brexit trade rules for Northern Ireland by scrapping checks and challenging the role played by the European Union's court in a new clash with Brussels.

Despite Ireland describing the move as a "new low" and Brussels talking of damaged trust, Britain pressed ahead with what Prime Minister Boris Johnson suggested were "relatively trivial" steps to improve trade and reduce bureaucracy.

European Commission Vice President Maros Sefcovic said Brussels' reaction would be proportionate, but ruled out renegotiating the trade protocol.


Tensions have simmered for months after Britain accused the bloc of heavy-handed approach to the movement of goods between Britain and Northern Ireland - checks needed to keep an open border with EU-member Ireland.

Always the toughest part of the Brexit deal, the situation in the region has rung alarm bells in European capitals and Washington, and among business leaders. It has also heightened political tensions, with pro-British communities saying their place in the United Kingdom is being eroded.

"I'm very willing to negotiate with the EU, but they do have to be willing to change the terms of this agreement which are causing these very severe problems in Northern Ireland," British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said.

"We're completely serious about this legislation."

Britain has pointed to the breakdown of a power-sharing administration in Northern Ireland as a reason for drafting the legislation, the first step in what could be a months-long process before the bill becomes law.

The legal advice cited the "doctrine of necessity", which is invoked when governments may take law-breaking action to protect stability, as the foundation for the move, saying the conditions had been met because of the situation in Northern Ireland.

Britain has long complained that negotiations with the EU have failed to come to fruition and the legislation is seen as an insurance policy, and possibly a bargaining chip. The bill could accommodate any solution agreed in those talks.

The new trade row comes as Britain faces its toughest economic conditions in decades, with inflation forecast to hit 10% and growth stalling. Johnson said any talk of a trade war would be a "gross, gross overreaction".

The EU's Sefcovic said the bloc will not renegotiate the protocol and called the idea "unrealistic".

"Any renegotiation would simply bring further legal uncertainty for people and businesses in Northern Ireland," Sefcovic said in a statement.

"Our aim will always be to secure the implementation of the Protocol. Our reaction to unilateral action by the UK will reflect that aim and will be proportionate."

NEW CLASH

Britain has long threatened to rip up the protocol, an agreement that kept the region under some EU rules and drew an effective customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK to prevent a back door for goods to enter the EU's vast single market.

It now plans a "green channel" for goods moving from Britain to Northern Ireland, to change tax rules and end the European Court of Justice's role as sole arbiter in disputes. It also wants a dual regulatory regime, angering companies which fear higher costs.

The move has again exposed divisions in Johnson's Conservative Party, a week after the prime minister just survived a rebellion by his own lawmakers.

Brexit supporters said it could have gone further, critics feared it again undermined London's standing in the world by challenging an international agreement.

Similar divisions were evident in Northern Ireland.

Brussels believes any unilateral change may breach international law, while Irish foreign minister Simon Coveney said that only the British government thought it was not a breach.

The EU could launch legal action or eventually review terms of the free trade deal it agreed with Britain. It has already thrown doubt on Britain's role within the $99 billion Horizon Europe research programme.

On Monday, the White House urged Britain and the EU to resolve their differences, but said it saw no impact on a U.S.-UK trade dialogue planned in Boston next week.

"The U.S. priority remains protecting the gains of the Belfast Good Friday agreement, and preserving peace, stability and prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters.

Asked if Britain's plans could be an impediment for June 22 U.S.-UK trade discussions or a future trade deal, Jean-Pierre said, "No, I don't believe it will be."

A spokesperson for the British embassy in Washington said there was no linkage between the dialogue, which will focus on small and medium businesses, and Britain's talks with the EU.

"The UK government is focused on doing what’s right for the people of Northern Ireland and to safeguard peace and stability," the spokesperson said.

($1 = 0.9553 euros)

(Additional reporting by Paul Sandle, Andrew MacAskill, William James, Alistair Smout and Kylie MacLellan in London, Marine Strauss and Benoit Van Overstraeten in Brussels, Padraic Halpin in Dublin and Alexandra Alper and Andrea Shalal in Washington; Editing by Louise Heavens, Mark Potter, Ed Osmond, William Maclean, Tomasz Janowski and David Gregorio)

New Tory rift as Boris Johnson warned plan to override protocol goes against party principles

Kate Devlin
Sun, June 12, 2022,

Boris Johnson is set to open up another rift within his party, as his own MPs warn that controversial plans to override the Northern Ireland protocol go against key Conservative principles.

Tory MPs are already braced for the bill to breach international law, despite ministers’ protestations to the contrary.

A leaked briefing paper being shared among Conservative MPs describes the move, which experts have warned could provoke a trade war with the European Union, as “damaging to everything the UK and Conservatives stand for”.

The move could be as devastating to the reputation of the party as the Iraq war was for Labour, it adds.

Fears that the legislation will be used by Mr Johnson to stage a “show of strength” against Brussels were fuelled when a cabinet minister said EU countries were being “disingenuous” in their attitude to the protocol, which was jointly agreed by the UK and the EU as part of Mr Johnson’s Brexit deal.

Labour’s Jenny Chapman accused the government of deliberately “making Brexit worse” in order to divert attention from the embattled prime minister, just days after four in 10 of his own MPs voted to oust him from Downing Street.

The latest row erupted as one senior Tory MP, Charles Walker, said he would not contest the next general election because of the “guerrilla warfare” within the party.

Legislation designed to override parts of the protocol will be published on Monday.

Opposition parties have demanded that ministers reveal the source of legal advice suggesting that the government’s plans would not breach international law, following allegations it had gone “lawyer shopping”.

Many Tory MPs see the rabble-rousing over Brexit as a lurch to the right designed to shore up support for the prime minister after last Monday’s damaging confidence vote.

But the decision to push ahead with the protocol legislation risks alienating more moderate MPs, especially in Lib Dem-facing seats in the south of England.

Voters in these areas are seen as less likely to care about Brexit, and more likely to be upset by the sight of the government breaching its international obligations.

Legislation designed to override parts of the protocol will be published on Monday (Getty Images)

The briefing paper, the contents of which were first reported by the Politics Home website, also warned that the legislation risked alienating the swing voters needed to protect the union.

Rebel Tory MPs believe Mr Johnson is on borrowed time in Downing Street. They hope to spend the next few weeks persuading the 32 MPs they are hoping will switch sides that the Tory leader is a busted flush.

Before last week’s confidence vote, government sources made clear that the prime minister wanted to calm the rhetoric around Brexit, and criticised explosive briefings from allies of the foreign secretary Liz Truss.

It is unclear whether or not the legislation will also have one of its desired effects – convincing Northern Ireland’s DUP to re-enter power sharing.

Government sources said they were hopeful that the party would set out some possible next steps once it saw the detail of the bill, but would not be drawn further.

Irish prime minister Micheal Martin has already warned that the publication of a bill enabling unilateral action on the Northern Ireland protocol would mark a “historic low point”.

Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Northern Ireland’s Alliance Party have demanded ministers reveal who they consulted for legal advice on the bill.

Shadow Northern Ireland secretary Peter Kyle said ministers should release the maximum possible legal advice with “transparency about its origins”.

Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael, who served as a cabinet minister in the coalition government, said: “The rule about not disclosing legal advice depends on the government acting in good faith and getting the best independent advice.

“It is not apparent that they have done that here, and as a result they should not be allowed to hide behind a rule that they themselves have already broken.”

Stephen Farry, the deputy leader of the Alliance Party, said ministers should be transparent about which lawyers were consulted.

“In light of the government moving outside the normal process of legal advice, they need to be fully transparent,” he said. 

Boris Johnson told to reveal secret legal sources behind government’s Northern Ireland protocol legislation

Kate Devlin
Sun, June 12, 2022,

Boris Johnson is under pressure to reveal the secret sources behind advice given to his government that its controversial plans to tear up the Northern Ireland protocol are legal.

Tory MPs are already braced for the legislation, due to be published on Monday, to breach international law, despite protestations from cabinet ministers that it will be lawful.

Last week, Sir Jonathan Jones, the government’s former top lawyer, said the process of gathering legal advice felt like a “stitch-up” and “like lawyer-shopping”.

Now Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Northern Ireland’s Alliance Party have called on ministers to set aside usual practice and reveal who they consulted.

Shadow Northern Ireland secretary Peter Kyle said the government should release the legal advice it received with “transparency about its origins”.

Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael, who served a cabinet minister in the coalition government, said the process of obtaining independent legal advice “should not be tainted by politics”.

“It looks to me like they have gone out looking for a political judgement,” he added. “The rule about not disclosing legal advice depends on the government acting in good faith and getting the best independent advice. It is not apparent that they have done that here, and as a result they should not be allowed to hide behind a rule that they themselves have already broken.”

Sir Jonathan’s criticism followed reports that first Treasury counsel Sir James Eadie, the government’s independent barrister on national legal issues, was not consulted specifically on whether or not the planned bill would break international law.

A former cabinet minister told The Independent that not asking the opinion of the first Treasury counsel was “unprecedented”.

Meanwhile, leaked correspondence showed that a senior legal adviser had warned that it could not be “credibly” argued that there was no alternative to unilaterally overriding the Brexit agreement with Brussels.

Stephen Farry, the deputy leader of the Alliance Party in Northern Ireland, said ministers should be transparent about which lawyers had been consulted.

“In light of the government moving outside the normal process of legal advice, they need to be fully transparent,” he said.

Irish prime minister Micheal Martin has warned that publishing plans to act unilaterally in regard to the protocol would mark a “historic low point”.

Northern Ireland secretary Brandon Lewis said the government intended to set out the “legal basis” for its belief that the legislation would not breach international law.

Tory MPs attack Boris Johnson over plan to rip up N Ireland Brexit deal

Posted on June 12, 2022 

Boris Johnson has been accused by Tory MPs of “damaging the UK and everything the Conservatives stand for” as he prepares to publish a bill to rip up his 2020 Brexit deal with the EU covering trade with Northern Ireland.

The legislation, to be published on Monday, will bring Johnson into conflict with many of his own Tory MPs, the House of Lords, the EU, lawmakers in Washington and even some business groups in Northern Ireland.

An internal note circulating among Tory MPs opposing the bill and seen by the Financial Times says the measure “breaks international law and no shopping around for rent-a-quote lawyers can hide that”.


The legislation would expunge key elements of the so-called Northern Ireland protocol, part of an international treaty with the EU. It would also give ministers sweeping powers — government officials insist they are just an “insurance policy” — to change almost every aspect of the text.

Brandon Lewis, Northern Ireland secretary, insisted on Sunday the bill was “lawful and correct” and would fix problems in the protocol, part of Johnson’s Brexit deal.

But ministers privately admit the bill could be blocked for months by the House of Lords. Lord Chris Patten, a former Tory chair who led a review of policing in Northern Ireland, said it was “complete madness”.

Johnson argues that the operation of the protocol has created political tensions and business disruption. New checks are needed for goods travelling into the region, which remains part of the EU single market for goods, from the rest of Great Britain.

But the note being shared by Tory MPs, first reported by PoliticsHome, said: “Breaking international law to rip up the prime minister’s own treaty is damaging to everything the UK and Conservatives stand for.”

Government insiders say the bill, drafted in consultation with Tory MPs from the Eurosceptic European Research Group, would fundamentally rewrite the protocol. ERG members warned they would vote against the bill unless it met their demands.

It creates a new regime for border checks: goods from Great Britain destined to stay in Northern Ireland would go through a “green lane” with no checks, while goods heading across the open border into the Republic of Ireland and the EU single market would face “red lane” checks.

The bill would also end the role of the European Court of Justice in policing the protocol, end EU control over state aid and value added tax in Northern Ireland and create a dual regulatory regime, allowing goods originating in Great Britain to circulate in the region provided they meet UK standards, rather than the EU’s.

However the bill also contains a sweeping Clause 15 which would give ministers a reserve power to rip up other aspects of the protocol if it was felt they were causing political or economic disruption in Northern Ireland.

Allies of Liz Truss, the foreign secretary who is sponsoring the bill, insisted this was a technical “insurance” clause to be used as a tidying-up exercise; sceptics at Westminster fear it could be used much more widely.

Whitehall insiders said officials had been left staggered by the scope of the new powers. One former cabinet minister said the proposals showed “utter contempt for the people of Northern Ireland”.

Some Tory MPs fear it could be used to scrap the democratic “consent vote” on the protocol that is set for 2024, where the people of Northern Ireland could decide whether to continue with it.

But government officials insisted that was neither the intention of Clause 15 nor a possible outcome, since the consent vote was enshrined in an international treaty and could not be affected by a domestic law change.

The clause, seen by the FT, would specifically protect only three parts of the protocol, covering rights of individuals, free travel and north-south co-operation in areas like health and agriculture.

Sir Jonathan Jones, the former head of the UK government’s legal department who quit last year over the government’s handling of the protocol issue, said: “They signed a binding international agreement and cannot turn off those obligations just by changing domestic law.”

Meanwhile Johnson’s argument that the protocol is damaging the economy has been contradicted by Northern Ireland’s food, meat and dairy industry in recent days which have asked for it to be retained, arguing it provided them with valuable access to international markets.

Source: Financial Times

The post Tory MPs attack Boris Johnson over plan to rip up N Ireland Brexit deal appeared first on The New York Ledger.

IT'S FRIDAY. START OF THE WEEKEND MASSACRES
Three Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Jenin raid



Three Palestinians have been killed and 10 wounded as Israeli forces raided Jenin in the occupied West Bank, the Palestinian health ministry has said.

About 30 Israeli military vehicles raided Jenin in the early hours of Friday and surrounded a car in al-Marah area in the east of the city, firing shots at four men sitting inside. Three of them were killed and a fourth seriously injured.

Palestinian news agency Wafa named the men killed as Baraa Lahlouh (24), Yusuf Salah (23) and Laith Abu Suroor (24).

The Israeli army said in a brief message in Hebrew that it was conducting an operation to locate weapons from two different locations, and that they had been fired upon.

“Shots were identified towards the soldiers who thwarted the terrorists’ plans to target them,” the army said, adding that they found weapons, including two M-16 assault rifles and cartridges at the scene.

Residents in Jenin said they suspected the Israelis had intended to demolish the home of Raed Hazem, who carried out a shooting attack in Tel Aviv on April 7 that killed three Israelis before he was shot dead.

The Israeli army has ramped up raids in and around the occupied Jenin camp, in an attempt to crack down on growing Palestinian armed resistance there.

Fears are rampant of a possible large-scale Israeli invasion of the camp, where the armed wings of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Fatah movements are active.

According to the Palestinian health ministry, more than 60 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces this year, many of them in raids.

A string of Palestinian attacks since March has also killed 19 people in Israel.

Journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, a prominent TV reporter with Al Jazeera, was killed by Israeli forces last month in Jenin while she was covering an Israeli army operation.

A Palestinian investigation said the reporter – who was wearing a bullet-proof vest with “press” written on it and a reporting helmet when she was shot – was shot dead in what it described as a war crime.

Israel has backtracked from its initial insinuation that Abu Akleh could have been killed by a Palestinian gunman, but has now said it will not pursue a criminal investigation.

WTO agrees landmark fishing, food and Covid-19 vaccine deals after tense talks

The World Trade Organization concluded hard-won deals Friday on fishing subsidies, food insecurity and Covid-19 vaccines in a landmark bundle of agreements secured through hectic round-the-clock talks.

WTO director-general Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala said the trade ministers’ conference had struck an “unprecedented package of deliverables” which would make a difference to people’s lives across the planet.

The talks at the global trade body’s Geneva headquarters began Sunday and were due to wrap up on Wednesday.

But instead the WTO’s 164 members went straight through on into Friday, finally concluding at around 5:00 am (0300 GMT).

The ministerial conference also agreed on deals on e-commerce, responding to pandemics and reforming the organisation itself.

“Not in a long while has the WTO seen such a significant number of multilateral outcomes,” Okonjo-Iweala said.

“The package of agreements you have reached will make a difference to the lives of people around the world. The outcomes demonstrate that the WTO is in fact capable of responding to the emergencies of our time.”

With ministers struggling to conclude agreements on each topic separately, countries began making trade-offs in a bid to get several measures through in a grand bargain.
Fisheries deal netted


The fisheries deal was the last one to get over the line.

Delegations were frantically haggling in the early hours of Friday on the flagship issue being thrashed out at the WTO conference.

Negotiations towards banning subsidies that encourage overfishing and threaten the sustainability of the planet’s fish stocks have been going on at the WTO for more than 20 years.

Okonjo-Iweala, who took over in March 2021, hinged her leadership on breathing new life into the sclerotic organisation.

The former foreign and finance minister of Nigeria positioned herself as someone who can bang heads together and get business done.

The last ministerial conference in Buenos Aires in December 2017 was seen as a flop after failing to strike any heavyweight deals.

The new WTO chief wanted to prove that the organisation could still make itself relevant in tackling the big global challenges.

Some delegations accused India of being intransigent on every topic under discussion at the WTO—where decisions can only pass with the agreement of every member.

But Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal insisted: “India is not a roadblock on anything... People are realising that we were the ones who actually helped create the sole consensus.”

The second major issue on the table was the plan for a Covid-19 vaccine patents waiver.

Some countries that host major pharmaceutical companies, like Britain and Switzerland, were finding some of the draft wording problematic, while big pharma feared a deal that would strangle innovation.

But Britain’s ambassador in Geneva, Simon Manley, told Okonjo-Iweala late Thursday that after clarification and improvements were achieved, London was “now ready to join the consensus”.

(AFP)

Germans turn to food banks as inflation hits


Yasmine GUÉNARD-MONIN
Fri, June 17, 2022,


German pensioner Gabriele Washah waits in line to fill her trolley with bags of carrots for 50 cents, yoghurts just past their sell-by date and bunches of wilting flowers.

With the cost of living soaring across Europe, the 65-year-old retired shop assistant is one of many Germans turning to food banks to make ends meet.

"Sometimes I go home from the shop almost crying because I can't afford it any more," she told AFP outside the row of stalls in Bernau, near Berlin.

Nestled in an alleyway behind a big chain supermarket, the food bank sells at greatly reduced prices groceries donated by supermarkets, as well as cheap prepared meals.

Here, customers can pick up a full trolley of food for around 30 euros (around $32).

For Washah, that means bread, butter and her favourite sandwich filling, sausage -- "which used to cost 99 cents ($1.02) but now sometimes costs more than two euros".

Driven by the war in Ukraine, inflation in Germany soared to 7.9 percent in May -- its highest level since reunification in 1990, with food prices among those worst affected.

Demand for food banks across the country has increased "significantly" since the start of the year and doubled in some areas, according to a spokeswoman for the Tafel food bank network.

There are around 1,000 such schemes in Germany, run by volunteers and available to customers on a means-tested basis.

Groceries, while donated, are still sold rather than given away free to the customers as the Tafel has to cover running costs, including rents and electricity. The organisation too has had to put up prices because their running costs have risen.

"It's not just one product," said 69-year-old pensioner Peter Behme. "All the prices are going up."

- Poverty line -

In a bid to ease the pressure on squeezed finances, the government has lowered taxes on fuel, drastically slashed the cost of public transport and promised all taxpayers a one-off payment of 300 euros.

But Behme remains unimpressed. "I don't know where the government help is going," he said.

Even the food banks themselves are feeling the effects of the massive inflation.

"We have had to raise some prices by 20 or 50 cents because we need money to replenish our stocks," said Malina Jankow, manager of the Bernau food bank.

Along with pensioners and unemployed people, the queues are now also filling up with Ukrainian refugees.

Anna Dec, a 35-year-old hospital worker, has come to Bernau with two Ukrainian women who are staying in her home and currently each receiving 449 euros a month in benefits.

"They have to pay for water, energy, food, hygiene products... That's almost nothing," she said.

Overwhelmed by the influx of customers, some food banks in Germany have had to turn away new arrivals or ration the food they distribute.

"We have been asking the government for a long time for a law to force supermarkets to give away their unsold food," said Norbert Weich, 72, chairman of the food bank.

Some 16 percent of Germans, or more than 13 million people, were living below the poverty line in 2020, according to a study by the charity Deutscher Paritaetische Gesamtverband, published in December 2021.

"The federation of food banks has a resolution: as soon as we are no longer needed, we will disband," said Weich. "But I don't think it will be in my lifetime."

str-fec/hmn/kjm

Lethbridge historian tracks down unique books from 1914

Belinda Crowson loves a good book, especially when it's got some local history.

Belinda Crowson holds two books written in 1914 about 

Lethbridge and southern Alberta

Quinn Campbell - Yesterday Global News

The historian and avid reader set out to find two unique books dating back an entire century.

"I knew that in 1914 two sisters that visited Lethbridge in 1911 had both written novels," added Crowson.

Read more:
New book gives readers snapshot of Lethbridge’s past

After keeping a close eye on book sites for about 10 years, she has finally added both books to her private collection.

"One is a first addition, one is a reprint and both of them are set in southern Alberta. One is actually set mostly in Lethbridge and it tells this beautiful story of Lethbridge in 1911," she said.

The books are written by Cicely and Madge Smith. The young sisters were from England and came to Lethbridge to visit their brother who was a lawyer at the time.

Cicely's book is titled City of Hope and Madge wrote Alberta and The Others, which Crowson said clearly highlights Lethbridge.

Read more:
Black History Month: The untold story of ‘Auntie’ Annie Saunders in southern Alberta

"She sets it in Sunshine and it's absolutely Lethbridge, right down to the descriptions. They would have arrived here at the train station," said Crowson.

"They talk about our square, which would have been Galt Gardens. They talk about the hospital, which they call the Salt Hospital instead of the Galt Hospital."

The books are now stamped with her initials and a forever home on her book shelf.

Crowson is already looking for her next needle-in-a-hay-stack book to collect.

"I'm always trying to find those books that aren't very much in print and, as I said, every historian has that list [of books to collect] and I probably shouldn't admit that yesterday I just tracked down five more books for my collection," laughed Crowson.