THE FORGOTTEN WAR

UN Has Got Only 12% of Funds Sought for War-wracked Sudan

Sudanese refugees who fled the violence in Sudan's Darfur region and newly arrived ride their donkeys looking for space to temporarily settle, near the border between Sudan and Chad in Goungour, Chad May 8, 2023. 

REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra/File Photo

Asharq Al Awsat

-18 May 2024 AD ـ 10 Thul-Qi’dah 1445 AH


The United Nations warned on Friday that it had only received 12 percent of the $2.7 billion being sought for war-wracked Sudan, adding that "famine is closing in".

Tens of thousands of people have died and millions have been displaced in Sudan since war broke out in April 2023 between the army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

The United Nations says more than 1.4 million people have fled the country.

"It is a catastrophically underfunded appeal," Jens Laerke, spokesman for the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) told reporters.

"Without more resources coming in fast, humanitarian organisations won’t be able to scale up in time to stave off famine and prevent further deprivation," he said, AFP reported.

"In Sudan, half of the population, 25 million people, need humanitarian aid. Famine is closing in. Diseases are closing in. The fighting is closing in on civilians, especially in Darfur."

The United Nations has expressed growing concern in recent days over reports of heavy fighting in densely populated areas as the RSF seeks control of El-Fasher, the last major city in the western Darfur region not under its control.

"Now is the time for donors to make good on pledges made, step up and help us help Sudan and be part of changing the current trajectory that's leading toward the cliff's edge. Don't be missing in action," he said.

Shible Sahbani, the UN's World Health Organization representative in Sudan, said: "Thirteen months of war in Sudan, nine million people displaced which represent around 17 percent of the population and the largest internal displacement crisis in the world today.

"This conflict has... nearly destroyed the health system which is almost collapsed now. Close to 16,000 people have died due to this war, 33,000 have been injured," she said, speaking from Port Sudan.

Sahbani said the real toll was "probably much higher".

The RSF and Sudan's armed forces are seen as both wanting to secure a battleground victory and each side has received support from outside players.

The UN human rights chief Volker Turk this week separately spoke to Lieutenant-General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, president of the Transitional Sovereignty Council, and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, Commander of the Rapid Support Forces.

"He urged them both to act immediately – and publicly – to de-escalate the situation," UN human rights spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani said.

UK
Palestinian student ‘full of joy’ after Oct 7 attack upset she faces deportation

Charles Hymas
Fri, 17 May 2024 

Dana Abuqamar, 19, claims Palestinians are not being afforded the right to freedom of expression

A Palestinian student who said she was “full of pride” after Hamas launched its attack on Israel faces deportation.

Dana Abuqamar, 19, a law student at Manchester University, had her visa to stay in the UK revoked in December after she was filmed just a day after the Hamas terrorist attack saying she was “really full of joy” and “proud that Palestinian resistance has come to this point”.

Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick, the home secretary and immigration minister at the time, ruled that her presence in the UK was “not conducive to the public good” and revoked her visa, meaning she had no right to remain.

Ms Abuqamar is, however, understood to be fighting the decision on the basis that rescinding her student visa has “violated her human rights” on the “baseless” accusation that she is a “risk to public safety”.

It is thought Ms Abuqamar is taking legal action as there is no formal right of appeal to the revocation of a visa. Under the rules, an individual is expected to voluntarily leave the UK. If they fail to do so, they face removal by immigration enforcement.

The Home Office would only say that it did not comment on individual cases.

In a video released this week, Ms Abuqamar confirmed she was appealing the decision and said her remarks in October, which were publicly condemned by policing minister Chris Philp, had been misrepresented.



She told Middle East Eye: “My words were taken out of context and they were framed as me supporting harm to innocent civilians, which is completely false and completely untrue.

“The UK Home Office decided to revoke my student visa following public statements supporting the Palestinian right to exercise under international law to resist oppression and break through the siege that was illegally placed on Gaza for over 16 years.”

She added: “It’s an outrageous claim that the Home Office is making by deeming me a national security threat.

“I am a 19-year-old who has done nothing but go to school and advocate for social justice and try to be an asset to my community.

“So saying I pose a threat to national security is a completely baseless claim.”

‘Human rights appeal’

The final year law student said she had made a “human rights appeal”, citing freedom of expression as a fundamental human right in the UK.

She has said it appears Palestinians like herself are not being afforded that right.

Ms Abuqamar added: “We must reject the double standard in the application of human rights by public authorities and rise against this oppression.”

On Oct 8 Ms Abuqamar was speaking to Sky News in Manchester when she praised the assault on Israel.

She said: “We are full of pride. We are really, really full of joy [at] what has happened.... We are proud that Palestinian resistance has come to this point.”

However, after widespread condemnations, including from Chris Philp, the policing minister, she claimed her comments had been misrepresented, and later told BBC: “The death of any innocent civilian should not be condoned ever and we don’t condone it at all.”

Ms Abuqamar told the broadcaster that 15 of her relatives had died in an Israeli strike on a residential building in Palestine.

A Home Office spokesman said: “It is a longstanding government policy that we do not comment on individual cases.”

POSTMODERN COLONIALISM

France Works to Regain Control of Parts of New Caledonia

Ben Westcott, Eddie Spence and Ania Nussbaum
Fri, 17 May 2024 




(Bloomberg) -- The French government is moving to regain full control of the Pacific territory of New Caledonia, High Commissioner Louis Le Franc said, as extra security forces arrive in the archipelago to end a week of violent protests by pro-independence groups.

Le Franc said new security deployments, after French President Emmanuel Macron’s government declared a state of emergency, would help reassert control following violence that left behind burned cars, torched stores and improvised barricades along roads.

“Restoring order and calm to New Caledonia is our priority,” the Prime Minister Gabriel Attal said in a statement on Friday.

The government said it was flying in 1,000 more security personnel from France in addition to the 1,700 already present. It is also setting up air connections to send food and basic goods to the population.

Protests erupted after the National Assembly passed a bill that would allow some French residents of the islands to vote, potentially diluting the power of the indigenous electorate. New Caledonia held a referendum on independence in 2021 that overwhelmingly voted to stay with France after key local groups boycotted the ballot.

“Significant reinforcements will be arriving,” the high commissioner told reporters on Friday. They will help restore authority in “areas that have escaped us in recent days, where control is no longer assured.”

The violence has disrupted nickel production, a key industry for the territory, hitting miners including French firm Eramet SA. The protests were not directed against resource companies.

The territory was the world’s third-biggest producer of the battery metal last year, accounting for around 6% of global output, according to the US Geological Survey.

Why French Territory of New Caledonia Is in Chaos: QuickTake

The state of emergency imposed on Wednesday is scheduled to last for 12 days. Government spokesperson Prisca Thevenot told reporters the measure allows authorities to prohibit public protests or require that people to stay in their homes, among other actions.

The French government said it had also temporarily banned TikTok in New Caledonia, citing security concerns.

“It is unfortunate that the New Caledonia High Commissioner decided to suspend TikTok’s service - we have received no requests or concerns about content from either the New Caledonian authorities or French government,” TikTok said in an e-mailed statement. “We stand ready to engage in discussions with the authorities.”

Earlier this week, the interior minister Gerald Darmanin said Azerbaijan was encouraging the protests. Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev has previously lashed out at Macron over French support for its neighbor Armenia. Aliyev accused France of depriving the people of New Caledonia of the right to independence at a conference on “neocolonialism” in Baku in October.

Azerbaijan has rejected France’s accusation of involvement in the unrest in New Caledonia.

Read this next: Macron Puts French Banks in Play With Plan to Transform Europe

Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire will meet with insurers next week to begin work on compensation for local businesses affected by the violence.

--With assistance from Paula Doenecke and Zulfugar Agayev.


Bloomberg Businessweek

WAIT, WHAT?

Azerbaijan accused of stirring unrest in New Caledonia as tensions persist

RFI
Fri, 17 May 2024



France says it has "no doubt" that Azerbaijan is stirring tensions in New Caledonia despite the vast geographical and cultural distance between the oil-rich Caspian state and the French Pacific territory.

In what is the latest in a litany of tensions between Paris and Baku, France has directly accused Azerbaijan of being behind an alleged disinformation campaign that has fomented the riots in New Caledonia.

Azerbaijan rejects the accusation over this week's unrest, which have led to the deaths of at least five people and rattled the government in Paris.

The riots in New Caledonia – the French overseas territory lying between Australia and Fiji – were sparked by moves to agree anew voting lawthat supporters of independence from France say discriminates against the indigenous Kanak population.

Paris has pointed to the sudden emergence of Azerbaijani flags alongside Kanak symbols in the protests. A group linked to the Baku authorities is openly backing separatists while condemning Paris.

“This isn't a fantasy. It's a reality," Darmanin told television channel France 2 when asked if Azerbaijan, China and Russia were interfering in New Caledonia.

"I regret that some of the Caledonian pro-independence leaders havemade a deal with Azerbaijan. It's indisputable," he alleged.

France is a traditional ally of Christian Armenia, Azerbaijan's neighbour and historic rival, and is also home to a large Armenian diaspora.

Cop29 at a crossroads in Azerbaijan with focus on climate finance

POLLUTER PAYES

Fiona Harvey Environment editor

THE GUARDIAN
Fri, 17 May 2024

A nodding donkey pumps oil in an oilfield near Baku, Azerbaijan, one of the most fossil-fuel dependent economies in the world.Photograph: Grigory Dukor/Reuters
Oil is inescapable in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. The smell of it greets the visitor on arrival and from the shores of the Caspian Sea on which the city is built the tankers are eternally visible. Flares from refineries near the centre light up the night sky, and you do not have to travel far to see fields of “nodding donkeys”, small piston pump oil wells about 6 metres (20ft) tall, that look almost festive in their bright red and green livery.

It will be an interesting setting for the gathering of the 29th UN climate conference of the parties, which will take place at the Olympic Stadium in November.

Mukhtar Babayev, the minister of ecology for Azerbaijan, who will chair the fortnight-long Cop climate summit, likes to position the country as at the crossroads of the world. He says it can provide a bridge between the wealthy global north and the poor global south; as a former Soviet bloc country, between east and west; and between its fellow oil and gas producers and the consuming countries that provide its export market.


Azerbaijan is where the world’s first oil wells were dug in the 1840s, more than a decade before the US dug their first well in Pennsylvania. It is one of the most fossil-fuel dependent economies: oil and gas make up 90% of its exports and provide 60% of the government’s budget.

This brought riches. “Oil and, more recently, gas have been largely responsible for the remarkable rise in living standards in Azerbaijan since the late 1990s,” according to the International Energy Agency.

But the country is moving to renewable energy, with plans for a big expansion of wind and solar energy. An interconnector is planned to carry this low-carbon power to eastern Europe, under the Black Sea to Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.

“Azerbaijan would like to share our experience,” Babayev said in an interview in Baku. “We would like to invite all the countries, especially the fossil fuel producing countries, to be together in this process. Because we understand our responsibility. We think that we can do more, and together.”

In December, at the Cop28 summit in Dubai, countries agreed to “transition away” from fossil fuels. For many, that fell too far short of the full phase-out that more than 80 countries were calling for. Yet it was the first time in 30 years of global climate conferences that the causes of the climate crisis – fossil fuels – were identified and targeted. That is a testament to the enormous power fossil fuel producers wield over the rest of the world. In the words of António Guterres, the UN secretary general, they “have humanity by the throat”.

At the Baku conference, the focus will shift from what there is too much of – fossil fuels – to what the proponents of action severely lack: finance. To cut greenhouse gas emissions, to make the world’s existing infrastructure more resilient to extreme weather, to bring about the “green transition” needed to hold global temperatures within 1.5C of pre-industrial levels requires vast investment.

According to a report led by the economists Lord Stern and Vera Songwe, about $2.4tn (£1.9tn) will be needed each year by 2030, just for developing countries excluding China to bring about the changes needed.

“We need to provide the availability, accessibility, affordability of finance,” said Babayev. “Developed world donors, they need to hear very carefully the position of the developing countries also.”

The main aim for Cop29 is to set a “new collective quantified goal” for such finance. Mohamed Adow, the director of the Power Shift Africa thinktank, believes the money could bring about a transformation in the fight for a livable climate.

“Tackling the climate crisis needs two things: political will and financial investment. In many parts of the global south, there is political will – what is missing is investment,” he said. “Getting a long-term finance goal is vital to unlock the energy transition around the world that we need to bring down emissions.”

The money cannot come soon enough for countries such as Zambia, which is facing severe hunger owing to the driest agricultural season in more than 40 years. The environment minister, Collins Nzovu, said: “Africa has contributed very little to climate change. Our CO2 emissions are almost negligible. And yet the consequences Africa is suffering are so severe.”

But getting hold of finance is almost impossible for such countries because lenders refuse or attach high interest rates and onerous conditions to it because they believe poor countries to be too risky. Nzovu said: “The risk perception they give to Africa, it’s so high. One, the big problem is that the financing is expensive. Two, is that it’s not accessible. Three, it’s not adequate at all. The conditions put forward for Africa to access that finance are almost impossible.”

In the Maldives, too, where the impacts of rising sea levels and storm surges are threatening the survival of the islanders, investment is sorely needed. But Mohamed Saeed, the minister for the economy, said the archipelagic state, like other vulnerable countries, meets mainly with excuses rather than assistance. “When you come and knock on their door, asking for investments on climate, the banks, private capital firms and lenders, they say this is too big, too small, too risky to invest in, we need to do more research, more findings, more soul-searching,” he said.

The very vulnerability of such countries is used against them. “The question they ask is, will your country survive?”

The problem for Azerbaijan, and the UN, is that although Cop29 has the responsibility for delivering a finance settlement, the levers of power lie elsewhere. The World Bank is the biggest development finance institution globally, but in the eyes of many poorer countries it has failed on climate finance in recent years.

Mia Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados, has led the developing world in calling for reform of the World Bank, with greater flexibility as a donor, and a willingness to use its cash to give developing countries access to private sector lending at lower interest rates.

Along with the president of Kenya, William Ruto, and Emmanuel Macron of France, Mottley is also spearheading an initiative to explore possible new sources of finance, such as a levy on frequent flyers, a carbon charge on international shipping, windfall taxes on fossil fuel producers, even a global wealth tax.

But who should be the main sources of climate finance? The definition of which countries are developing has remained unchanged since 1992, but since then, many emerging economies have grown rapidly, in terms of income and emissions. If a climate treaty were being written today, it would seem absurd to class Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, South Korea and other states with high per capita income, many as a result of oil wealth, alongside the likes of Chad, Burkina Faso and Bangladesh.

Wopke Hoekstra, the EU’s climate commissioner, is insistent that the pool of donor countries must be widened. “We can no longer hide behind the logic of developed and developing,” he said. “We need to move to a paradigm of responsibility.”

He named the Gulf states, Singapore and China as examples. “With affluence, with wealth, also comes responsibility. We need to move to a situation where those with the ability to pay actually do pay.”

Hoekstra’s insistence points to wider geopolitical tensions. China has been accused of deliberately overexpanding its capacity to manufacture key products and components, including solar panels and electric vehicles, in order to undercut US and European competitors and drive them from the market. This row threatens to sour relations among some of the pivotal countries at the climate talks.

John Kerry, the US special presidential envoy for climate, and his counterpart, China’s top climate official Xie Zhenhua, shared a warm and close personal rapport. Their successors have shown signs of trying to emulate that close cooperation but the broader political currents may be against them.

Last week, when China’s new climate envoy, Liu Zhenmin, visited Washington DC for the first time, he was invited by John Podesta, Kerry’s replacement, to his house for a private dinner, which by all accounts was a cheerful affair. Days later, Joe Biden slapped punitive tariffs on $18bn of Chinese imports, including electric vehicles and solar panels.

More than half of the world’s population have gone or will go to the polls this year. Hoekstra’s tough talking on China must be seen in the context of EU fears of a backlash against green policies from the right, driven by economic concerns, in parliamentary elections in June. In the US, meanwhile, the resurgence of Donald Trump poses potentially a much greater threat to climate action: in his last term of office, he started the process of withdrawal from the Paris agreement.

The war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza will also cast long shadows. Azerbaijan was awarded presidency of Cop29 only in the closing stages of Cop28, after eastern European candidates including Romania and Bulgaria were blocked by Vladimir Putin. Azerbaijan was allowed to take the role only when Putin and Armenia agreed.

There are still tensions in the region after the conflagration with its neighbour Armenia last year, after 30 years of simmering ethnic tension centred on disputed borderlands. While hostilities ceased and a peace was concluded in December, it was only after 100,000 Armenians were forced to flee the disputed Karabakh region, and the area remains densely mined.

For Azerbaijan to bring about a successful Cop that solves the key questions of climate finance and brings trillions of dollars to the developing world to make the necessary green transition would be an extraordinary achievement. It remains unlikely, as there is so little agreement over where the investment should come from, and how it should be raised, and the sums being spoken of are nowhere near enough yet.

But it is certainly possible for Cop29 to produce vital progress, perhaps a pathway to a global financial settlement, one that reassures developing countries that their needs are being recognised.

“Let’s face it,” said Mary Robinson, a former president of Ireland and UN high commissioner for human rights, “we make the best we can with each Cop. They are never good enough. They are certainly never perfect. But we make the best we can.”

UK

Lammy: Trump has the ‘right concern’ about European defence spending

LABOUR SHADOW FOREIGN SECRETARY 

PA Reporters
Fri, 17 May 2024 

Donald Trump has “the right concern” about European defence spending, David Lammy said as he resisted calls from Labour’s London Mayor Sadiq Khan to challenge the Republican presidential candidate on his views.

The shadow foreign secretary said some countries are not committing enough money and that the UK could share a “common cause” with the US in pushing for that to “improve”.

Mr Trump prompted alarm in western capitals earlier this year when he suggested he would encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to Nato allies failing to meet their financial obligations.

Mr Lammy has sought to build diplomatic relationships with both Democrats and Republicans ahead of the US election this year, promising that Labour would work with whoever returns to the White House to preserve the transatlantic “special relationship”.

However, in an interview with Politico published earlier this week, London Mayor Mr Khan said Britain should call out Mr Trump as a “racist, sexist” and “homophobe”.



Sadiq Khan has been heavily critical of Donald Trump (PA)

Asked whether he would heed his party colleague’s advice, the shadow foreign secretary told an Institute for Government event on Friday: “This is a profoundly serious moment and it requires seriousness. That seriousness means that the special relationship between the United Kingdom and our American friends is core not just to our own national security, but security of much of the world.

“So, just like Wilson, Nixon, Blair, Bush, whoever is in the White House in a big election year in the United States or whoever is in No 10 in a big election year in our own country, of course we must work together.

“The truth is that you’re going to be hard-pressed to find any politician, particularly politicians who were on the back benches, who haven’t had something to say about Donald Trump.

“I take very seriously the responsibility of being on the front bench and the responsibility of finding common cause on behalf of the national interests of this country.”

Mr Lammy also expanded on recent remarks in which he described the former president’s approach to Nato as “misunderstood”, saying he had been referring specifically to European defence spending.



Donald Trump has criticised some Nato members for not paying enough on defence spending (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee, File)

“He (Mr Trump) in his own unique way, I think, is concerned about burden-sharing across Europe – that is a concern shared by my friend Barack Obama, it is a concern that has been echoed since Kennedy, and it is the right concern because it is still the case that there are European countries not spending as much as they should on defence and that needs to improve, and that is something where the United Kingdom can join common cause with the United States,” the shadow minister said.

It marks a shift in tone from 2017 when the Labour frontbencher described Mr Trump as “racist” and a “Nazi sympathiser,” saying he would protest on the streets if the then-president visited the UK.

Mr Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of racism levelled against him but railed against what he describes as “political correctness.”

The London Mayor said earlier this week: “(Donald Trump is) a racist. He’s a sexist. He’s a homophobe. And it’s very important, particularly when you’ve got a special relationship, that you treat them as a best mate.

“If my best mate was a racist, or a sexist or a homophobe, I’d call him out and I’d explain to him why those views are wrong.”

Mr Lammy also indicated that Labour would not pursue a trade deal with the US unless the White House changed its position because “it feels pretty clear to me that America has set its face against trade deals”.

“That’s not particular to the United Kingdom, but the political establishment, both Democrat and Republican, is not focused on trade deals at the moment and therefore I think unless that changes we would be expending a lot of effort unnecessarily,” he said.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Mr Lammy made a series of pledges aimed at putting expertise at the heart of the UK’s foreign policy agenda.

He promised that Labour would establish a “college of diplomacy”, teaching courses in areas such as languages and artificial intelligence (AI) which would be open to all of Whitehall as well as foreign mandarins “from friendly countries” as part of a Foreign Office shake-up.

The college, which would replace the Diplomatic Academy, would seek to set the “global gold standard” for both diplomacy and development, Mr Lammy said.

Leading figures from the arts, culture and academia would also be brought together as part of a new “soft power council”, he told the event.

The council would work alongside the British Council and BBC World Service to advance the UK’s national interests, he said.

Mr Lammy said: “At present neither the FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) nor the National Security Council is delivering the sharp, coherent international strategy which the country urgently needs.

“Without such strategy, we should expect to be buffeted by the tides of superpower competition, not only between the United States and China, but also by the many rising powers who are threatening our competitive advantages economically and militarily.”

'Progressive realism': 

UK Labour lays out foreign policy pitch

Peter HUTCHISON
Fri, 17 May 2024 

David Lammy is likely to become foreign secretary if Labour wins 

the general election 

(Paul ELLIS)

Closer relations with Europe, continued support for Ukraine, and a desire for Palestinian statehood: Britain's likely next government is outlining its foreign policy plans -- and much is similar to the current administration's.

If opinion polls are correct, the UK's main opposition Labour Party will defeat the ruling Conservatives at a general election due later this year and return to government for the first time since 2010.

Labour's foreign policy priority will be forging a closer relationship with European neighbours, rebuilding bridges since the country's acrimonious exit from the EU.

At the heart of that approach will be a new EU "security pact" that Labour wants to negotiate with the 27-member bloc.

The accord would drive "closer coordination across a wide variety of military, economic, climate, health, cyber, and energy security issues," Labour's international affairs spokesman David Lammy wrote recently in Foreign Affairs magazine.

It would also complement both parties' "unshakeable commitment to NATO", added Lammy, who wants Britain to "double down on its close relationships with France, Germany, Ireland, and Poland".

"The next election is an opportunity to turn the page on the post-Brexit rancour of the past," Lammy, 51, told reporters in London on Friday.

"I want to get back to structured dialogue with the European Union on the issues that matter."

Labour has enjoyed double-digit leads over the Conservatives for about 18 months, so Lammy has been laying out his vision for UK diplomacy.

He calls it "progressive realism" that combines the fact-based approach of arguably Labour's most famous foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, with the idealism of Robin Cook, who served as Britain's top diplomat in the late 1990s.

Bevin helped establish NATO and pushed for Britain to acquire nuclear weapons, while Cook oversaw successful interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone before resigning from Tony Blair's cabinet over the invasion of Iraq.

"Our diplomacy needs to rediscover the art of grand strategy," Lammy said Friday.

Analysts say much of Labour's current positioning on foreign affairs is about providing reassurance after it was perceived as weak on security and defence under left-winger Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

Its stance on the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza has echoed Sunak's, as has its commitment to backing Ukraine in its fight to repel Russia's invasion.

Labour is expected to continue with the Conservatives' more robust approach to China and shares the same aim to return aid spending to 0.7 percent of Gross National Income only when economic conditions allow.

- Multilateral institutions -

"The policies that they've set out are very, very similar to the government's," Bronwen Maddox, director of the Chatham House international affairs think-tank told AFP.

She expects to see a change in tone, a different migration policy since Labour has pledged not to follow Sunak's plan to deport irregular migrants to Rwanda, and a move to get closer to Europe.

Labour leader Keir Starmer, who voted to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum, has said Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" -- the European Union anthem -- best sums up his party.

But he has ruled out returning to the European single market, customs union or free movement if Labour wins power, with Brexit still a toxic political issue in the UK.

Labour does plan, however, to pursue a British-German defence accord similar to the Lancaster House agreement that the UK signed with France in 2010.

Lammy suggested that a youth mobility scheme proposed by the European Commission recently making it easier for Britons aged 18-30 to live, study and work in the EU could be included in a future relationship.

Brexit saw the UK withdraw from the EU's Erasmus student exchange programme, then propose its own global version, the Turing Scheme.

"That's part of the discussions that we'll enter into," said Lammy.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who voted to leave the EU, has yet to announce the date of the election but it must be held by January 28, 2025.

If Labour wins, analysts expect to see Britain engage more with global bodies.

Sunak became the first UK leader in a decade to skip the UN General Assembly last year while Tories regularly call for Britain to quit the European Convention on Human Rights.

"There will be greater focus on the reform of international institutions," and "a renewed push for the UK to promote its international leadership on climate policy", Sophia Gaston of the right-wing Policy Exchange think-tank told AFP.

pdh/phz/rlp

‘I’m the new Oppenheimer!’: my soul-destroying day at Palantir’s first-ever AI warfare conference


Caroline Haskins

THE GUARDIAN
Fri, 17 May 2024 a

The co-founder and CEO of Palantir, Alex Karp, and Adm Tony Radakin at the event last week.Photograph: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Palantir

On 7 and 8 May in Washington DC, the city’s biggest convention hall welcomed America’s military-industrial complex, its top technology companies and its most outspoken justifiers of war crimes. Of course, that’s not how they would describe it.

It was the inaugural “AI Expo for National Competitiveness”, hosted by the Special Competitive Studies Project – better known as the “techno-economic” thinktank created by the former Google CEO and current billionaire Eric Schmidt. The conference’s lead sponsor was Palantir, a software company co-founded by Peter Thiel that’s best known for inspiring 2019 protests against its work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) at the height of Trump’s family separation policy. Currently, Palantir is supplying some of its AI products to the Israel Defense Forces.

The conference hall was also filled with booths representing the US military and dozens of its contractors, ranging from Booz Allen Hamilton to a random company that was described to me as Uber for airplane software.

At industry conferences like these, powerful people tend to be more unfiltered – they assume they’re in a safe space, among friends and peers. I was curious, what would they say about the AI-powered violence in Gaza, or what they think is the future of war?

Attendees were told the conference highlight would be a series of panels in a large room toward the back of the hall. In reality, that room hosted just one of note. Featuring Schmidt and the Palantir CEO, Alex Karp, the fire-breathing panel would set the tone for the rest of the conference. More specifically, it divided attendees into two groups: those who see war as a matter of money and strategy, and those who see it as a matter of death. The vast majority of people there fell into group one.

I’ve written about relationships between tech companies and the military before, so I shouldn’t have been surprised by anything I saw or heard at this conference. But when it ended, and I departed DC for home, it felt like my life force had been completely sucked out of my body.

‘The peace activists are war activists’

Swarms of people migrated across the hall to see the main panel, where Karp and Schmidt spoke alongside the CIA deputy director, David Cohen, and Mark Milley, who retired in September as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, where he advised Joe Biden and other top officials on war matters. When Schmidt tried to introduce himself, his microphone didn’t work, so Cohen lent him his own. “It’s always great when the CIA helps you out,” Schmidt joked. This was about as light as things got for the next 90 minutes.

As the moderator asked general questions about the panelists’ views on the future of war, Schmidt and Cohen answered cautiously. But Karp, who’s known as a provocateur, aggressively condoned violence, often peering into the audience with hungry eyes, palpably desperate for claps, boos or shock.

He began by saying that the US has to “scare our adversaries to death” in war. Referring to Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel, he said: “If what happened to them happened to us, there’d be a hole in the ground somewhere.” Members of the audience laughed when he mocked fresh graduates of Columbia University, which had some of the earliest encampment protests in the country. He said they’d have a hard time on the job market and described their views as a “pagan religion infecting our universities” and “an infection inside of our society”. (He’s made these comments before.)

“The peace activists are war activists,” Karp insisted. “We are the peace activists.”

A huge aspect of war in a democracy, Karp went on to argue, is leaders successfully selling that war domestically. “If we lose the intellectual debate, you will not be able to deploy any armies in the west ever,” Karp said.

Earlier in the panel, Milley had said that modern war involved conflict in “dense urban areas with high levels of collateral damage”, clearly alluding to the war in Gaza, but too afraid to say it. But every time Karp spoke, Milley became more bombastic. By the panel’s end, he was describing Americans who oppose the war in Gaza as “supporting a terrorist organization”.

“Before we get self-righteous,” Milley said, in the second world war, “we, the US, killed 12,000 innocent French civilians. We destroyed 69 Japanese cities. We slaughtered people in massive numbers – men, women and children.”

Meanwhile, Schmidt mainly talked about the importance of drones and automation in war. (He is quietly trying to start his own war drone company.) For his part, Cohen urged the room to see the 7 October attack as a “big warning” about tech in military settings. Although Israel had invested “very heavily” in defense and surveillance technology, it had failed to stop the attack, Cohen noted. “We do need to have a little bit of humility.”

I just thought of something. I am the new Oppenheimer!

This didn’t seem to be a common view. The prevailing attitude of the conference was when systems fail, it just means you need newer technology, and more of it.

I walked out of the panel in a quiet daze. Milley’s comments about the second world war echoed in my head. It was, frankly, jarring to hear a recent top US official defend Israel’s mass killing of Gazan civilians by invoking wartime massacres that not only preceded the Geneva Conventions, but helped justify their creation.

All around me, I overheard upbeat conversation between hundreds of people who had just heard the same things I had – easygoing comments about lunch, travel or the next panel. I felt like we were living in totally different realities.
Shaky soldier vision

After pacing around for 10 minutes trying to enter a social headspace, I plugged my phone into an outlet and said hi to the person next to me, a man who appeared to be in his late 50s. I asked what he thought about the panel. Smiling meekly, he said it was “interesting” to hear Milley describe the second world war that way.

“Have you seen Oppenheimer?” he asked.

No, I said, but I’d read The Making of the Atomic Bomb.

I thought he was going to talk about the hubris of people who build weapons of war. Instead, he told me he works in nuclear weapons research at Los Alamos laboratory. Reaching into his backpack, he handed me a few Los Alamos pens and stickers.

After chatting for a few minutes – he wouldn’t get into much detail about his work, but did show off pictures of his expensive-looking rental car – he started packing up his things. “I just thought of something,” he said abruptly, laughing. “I am the new Oppenheimer!”

I managed to force a laugh as he started back to the Los Alamos booth.

Throughout the conference, I wandered to different booths. I ended up running into two people I knew from college. At the NSA booth, a young woman told me that the agency is great for “work-life balance”. I also stopped by Palantir’s career booth, where an employee, Elizabeth Watts, told me that the kind of person who works for Palantir is someone who wouldn’t be scared away by Karp’s panel. “People who are interested in national security, who understand there aren’t black and white solutions,” she said. “People who want to defend western democracies.”

In Palantir’s cavernous main booth, I tried on a VR headset to test Palantir’s new augmented reality tool for soldiers. I was told I’d be able to direct a truck or drone while continuing to see the world around me. But when I put on the headset, my field of vision became shaky and out of focus. It reminded me of goggles they made us wear during Dare anti-drug programs in middle school, meant to simulate being drunk.

Many people had been trying on the headset that day, a Palantir employee explained to me. In order for you to see things clearly, the headset has to fit your head and eyes perfectly. He didn’t offer to adjust the headset, so my hi-tech soldier vision remained out of focus.

On the evening on the first day, Palantir had a social event with free drinks. The only options were two IPAs, and I had one called “the Corruption”. It was, bar none, the worst beverage I’ve had in my entire life. I ended up talking to a Canadian man named Sata, who appeared to be in his mid-20s. He said he was an investor in Palantir, so I asked how he had gotten the money.

“I got in a car accident,” he said. After getting a small payout, he invested. So far, he’s only lost money.

No answers on ethics

To my knowledge, the only other journalist covering the conference was my friend Jack Poulson, who said I should join him at a panel discussion about ethics and human rights. It was being held as far away from the rest of the conference as it could get while remaining physically inside the building. You had to exit the main exhibit hall, walk down two extremely long hallways, and enter a door at the very end to find it.

By the time I arrived, they were ending the panel and starting the Q&A. Jack stood up at the first opportunity. He talked about the “provocative remarks” made throughout the conference about “exporting AI into places like Gaza”. Voice shaking, he mentioned Karp “unabashedly supporting” the ongoing killings in Gaza, and said Karp’s comments about “winning the debate” were clearly a euphemism for crushing dissent. A couple of 23audience members laughed quietly as Jack asked: could the panel respond to any of this?

The moderator decided to let everybody else ask their questions and let the panelists choose which to answer. Unsurprisingly, no one directly answered Jack’s question.

Later, as I entered the main conference hall, I found myself right behind a group of kids with tiny backpacks. They appeared to be in first or second grade. I asked a teacher, a blond woman with glasses, if there was an exhibit for kids. She said no, but one of them had a dad working at the event.

A slim man with dark hair approached the kids. He had a Special Competitive Studies Project pin on his suit. Beaming, he took a picture with them. About 30 minutes later, I found him taking the kids on a tour. He was squatting down to their height and pointing at something in a booth for a military vendor. I couldn’t hear what he was saying.
Helping choose what gets bombed

I also went to a panel in Palantir’s booth titled Civilian Harm Mitigation. It was led by two “privacy and civil liberties engineers” – a young man and woman who spoke exclusively in monotone. They also used countless euphemisms for bombing and death. The woman described how Palantir’s Gaia map tool lets users “nominate targets of interest” for “the target nomination process”. She meant it helps people choose which places get bombed.

After she clicked a few options on an interactive map, a targeted landmass lit up with bright blue blobs. These blobs, she said, were civilian areas like hospitals and schools. The civilian locations could also be described in text, she said, but it can take a long time to read. So, Gaia uses a large language model (something like ChatGPT) to sift through this information and simplify it. Essentially, people choosing bomb targets get a dumbed-down version of information about where children sleep and families get medical treatment.

“Let’s say you’re operating in a place with a lot of civilian areas, like Gaza,” I asked the engineers afterward. “Does Palantir prevent you from ‘nominating a target’ in a civilian location?”

Short answer, no. “The end user makes the decision,” the woman said.

Only one booth, a small, immersive exhibit with tall gray walls, seemed concerned about the ordinary people affected by war. It was run by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

A door-like opening brought me into an emergency shelter for a young family caught in a conflict zone. There was a small couch with an open sleeping bag on top, and children’s toys in the corner. A yellow print-out warned the inhabitants to “STAY IN DESIGNATED SAFE ZONES”. A radio on a kitchen table seemed to be playing the news, but the connection was spotty.

The exhibit was small, but in a conference largely celebrating the military industrial complex, it stuck out. It felt like a plea for someone, anyone, to consider the victims of war.

Outside, I talked to an ICRC employee, Thomas Glass. He was attentive and engaged, but he seemed tired. He said that he had just spent several weeks in southern Gaza setting up a field hospital and supporting communal kitchens.

I asked how people at the conference had been responding to his exhibit. Glass said that most people he met had been open-minded, but some asked why the ICRC was at the conference at all. They weren’t aggressive about it, he said. They just genuinely did not understand.

British decline linked to Brexit, weak leadership and poor finances in damning report

David Maddox
Thu, 16 May 2024 at 2:59 pm GMT-6·3-min read

Weak leadership, poor economic management and Brexit have dragged Britain out of the top 10 countries in a global index on good government.

The decline of Britain under the Tories has been charted by the global Chandler Good Government Index (CGGI) which saw it take 11th place.

At a time when Rishi Sunak has been under siege from his own Tory MPs, the UK’s place on the annual list was made worse by scores for “leadership and foresight” putting it in 20th place.

It was also hit by coming 27th in “financial stewardship”. The findings come amid a report of an exodus by companies from the City of London.

Prime minister Rishi Sunak steps out of 10 Downing Street. The UK was marked down for weak leadership (PA)

Despite Brexit and the fallout of leaving the EU, Britain’s position was boosted by coming second in the “reputation and global influence” category, being only beaten by France. Overall Singapore came top of the index. However, Brexit hurt the UK badly in its international trade score, with it dropping by 26 places.

The report noted that leadership makes an important difference.

It stated: “What public sector leaders decide, do, or say impacts public trust in government. Good leaders create and sustain cultures of integrity, competence, and service. They have a clear sense of medium- and longer-term pathways for their government and country. They cultivate the foresight needed to anticipate emerging challenges and opportunities.”

It scored countries’ governments for ethical leadership, long-term vision, adaptability, strategic prioritisation and innovation.

Meanwhile, financial stewardship was scored on government debt levels, spending efficiency, budget surplus, and risk premium.

Jeremy Hunt is in charge of the nation’s finances. The UK was also marked down for its financial stewardship (PA)

The UK’s global influence score was high but was harmed by being outside the EU, meaning that its status on international trade had dropped from joint second to 28th.

The findings were the conclusion of CGGI’s panel of experts and leaders in the world of business and government.

They included Dr Reuben Abraham, chief executive of Artha Global; Elizabeth Andersen, executive director of the World Justice Project; Dr Christian Bason, founder of the Transition Collective; Nathalie Delapalme, chief executive of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation; Adrian Brown, executive director of the Centre for Public Impact; Dr Ed Olowo-Okere, vice president at the World Bank; Dr Manuel Gerardo Flores Romero from the OECD; and Professor Kent Weaver, professor of public policy and government at Georgetown University.

Labour has jumped on the findings as evidence that the political chaos under the Tories and uncertainty surrounding Rishi Sunak’s leadership coupled with the fallout of Liz Truss’s mini-budget have put the UK into decline.

Shadow chief Treasury secretary Darren Jones said: “These new rankings fly in the face of Rishi Sunak's argument that we are turning the corner.

“The United Kingdom is a brilliant place with so much potential, but we have been disastrously let down by 14 years of chaos, with five prime ministers in seven years and our economy still reeling from the Tories’ bombshell mini-budget.

“Labour has a real plan to turn the page on this decline. With Keir Starmer's Labour Party, we will spur on a decade of renewal with strong fiscal rules, a new national wealth fund to make smart, strategic investments in the industries of the future, and public services we can be proud of again.”

The findings come as Sir Keir Starmer in effect launched Labour’s election campaign with a top promise of “economic stability” in his six first steps published on a new pledge card.

But Downing Street sources said they found the findings “strange” and “lacking in evidence”.

A source close to the prime minister said: “I would point you to GDP stats and what they showed last week. Joint fastest growth in the G7, one of best and fastest recoveries since pandemic (Germany and others still in recession) so not sure how the facts tally with their rankings.”

UK

SIR KEIR'S LABOUR ARE RED TORIES

Corbyn 'won't be Labour candidate at election,' says Reeves despite local party’s protests in north London

Nicholas Cecil
Fri, 17 May 2024 

Corbyn 'won't be Labour candidate at election,' says Reeves despite local party’s protests in north London

Jeremy Corbyn will not be a Labour candidate at the next general election, says Rachel Reeves despite protests by the local party in his Islington North constituency.

The shadow Chancellor flatly ruled out the former leader standing for Labour after the antisemitism row which so damaged the party when he was at the helm.

The process has been opened to select a Labour contender for Islington North, the area where Mr Corbyn has been the MP since 1983.

But he was stripped of the Labour whip, so is no longer a Labour MP, after Sir Keir Starmer became leader and a probe into antisemitism within the party.

Ms Reeves told BBC Radio London: “When Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour Party, I’m afraid that antisemitism was rife within the Labour Party and we were investigated by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission over the treatment of Jewish people.

“When that report was published, Jeremy Corbyn sadly refused to acknowledge what had happened in the Labour Party and his role within it.”

She added: “We have got an independent complaints process within the Labour Party.

“He’s no longer a Labour MP and he will not be the Labour candidate at the next election.”

But local Labour members are still pushing for Mr Corbyn, now an independent MP, to be able to throw his hat into the ring to be the party’s candidate for the north London seat.

In a series of tweets, Islington North Labour Party said: “Statement from Islington North CLP Officers: Islington North CLP members have been informed that the National Executive Committee (NEC) has opened the parliamentary candidate selection procedure for Islington North.

“We support Keir Starmer’s statement that “Local Party members should select their candidates for every election.” We ask that local democracy be respected & that we be able to choose our prospective parliamentary candidate from amongst any Labour Party member in good standing.

“An undemocratic selection process would harm the Labour Party’s efforts to defeat the conservatives and to achieve the real change this country and our communities in Islington North desperately need.”

Under the selection process, applications for the Labour stronghold seat will close on May 20 with a shortlist announced a week later.

The party will then host an online hustings for local members on May 29.

The Labour candidate will be announced on June 1.

Mr Corbyn, who has won Islington North for Labour at each of the last 10 general elections, has hinted that he may stand as an independent candidate.

He has made clear that he would like to continue to represent the area in Parliament.

He would be a very high-profile candidate. But independent candidates, without a party machine behind them, often struggle to win.

Sir Keir faced anger in Labour ranks over his decision to welcome Tory Rightwinger Natalie Elphicke into the Labour Party but still deny the whip to veteran MP Diane Abbott.

Hackney North and Stoke Newington Ms Abbott was suspended from the parliamentary Labour party last April for appearing in a letter to the Observer to diminish racism against Jewish people.

She withdrew her remarks and apologised "for any anguish caused" but still remains outside the parliamentary Labour party.

Islington North: Who could replace Jeremy Corbyn as Labour's candidate in the general election?

Sky News
Updated Thu, 16 May 2024 


Names have begun to emerge in what will likely be a tense and toxic contest to replace Jeremy Corbyn as the Labour Party's candidate for Islington North at the next general election.

The party formally launched the process to select its candidate for the north London seat after months of uncertainty.

Paul Mason, the former Channel 4 journalist, has confirmed he will seek the Labour nomination for the safe seat, as has transport author Christian Wolmar.

Labour insiders also suggested Islington councillor Praful Nargund could throw his hat in the ring, along with fellow local councillor Sheila Chapman and London Assembly member Sem Moema.

Uma Kumaran, a former adviser to Sir Keir Starmer, is also rumoured to be considering running to be the Labour candidate.

Sources close to Sam Tarry, the current Labour MP for Ilford South who was deselected by local party members in October 2022, dismissed rumours he was considering running in the selection, pointing out that he once served as Mr Corbyn's campaign manager.

Another Labour insider said running in a contest potentially against Mr Corbyn was "a hard sell for most activists".

"You will have a target painted on your back for the rest of your career," they added.

Mr Corbyn was first elected to represent Islington North in 1983 and has won it at each of the last 10 elections.

Sir Keir effectively barred his predecessor from ever standing as a Labour candidate when he proposed a motion by the party's ruling body, the National Executive Committee (NEC), which said Mr Corbyn "will not be endorsed by the NEC as a candidate on behalf of the Labour Party at the next general election".

It cited the dismal defeat Mr Corbyn led Labour to as leader in the 2019 general election in arguing his candidacy should be blocked and said the party's chances of securing a majority in the Commons would be "significantly diminished" if he was endorsed.

Mr Corbyn has been without the party whip - meaning he cannot sit as a Labour MP in the Commons - since 2020 following his response to a report into antisemitism within the party by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, which Sir Keir and his allies felt downplayed the significance of the problem while he was leader.

Since the passing of the NEC motion, speculation has been rife as to what Mr Corbyn's future could hold, including rumours he had considered running for London mayor, which he ultimately decided against - and that he could run against his former party as an independent candidate in Islington North, the seat he has represented for more than 40 years.

Sky News understands that although Mr Corbyn could still technically apply to be the Labour candidate for the seat he currently holds, because of the NEC motion, his application would be immediately dismissed and would not be considered by the party's selection committee.

That reality could prompt Mr Corbyn into formally declaring he will stand as an independent in Islington North - a move that is likely to result in him being suspended from the party he has been a member of for 50 years.

Applications to be selected to run for Labour in the seat opened on Wednesday, with candidates expected to be shortlisted next week.

The hustings will take place online, with Labour dismissing suggestions this is unusual. The result is expected to be announced on 1 June, according to reports.

Momentum, a grass-roots group set up in the wake of Mr Corbyn's leadership election victory back in 2015, hit out at the decision to bar Mr Corbyn from standing - pointing to his support among local Labour members.

John McDonnell, who served as shadow chancellor while Mr Corbyn was leader, said on X, formerly known as Twitter: "The wishes of the Labour Party members of Islington North should be respected and they should be allowed to select the candidate of their voice and that includes Jeremy Corbyn, who has given his life to representing his community."

Sky News has approached Mr Corbyn and the people named in this article for comment.

Union urges Labour not to ban new North Sea licences without plan for jobs


Heather Stewart
Thu, 16 May 2024 

Labour should be willing to continue issuing new North Sea licences unless it can show it will protect jobs, says Unite

The UK’s oil and gas workers risk becoming “the coal miners of our generation,” Unite’s general secretary, Sharon Graham, has warned, urging Labour not to ban new North Sea licences without a clear plan to safeguard jobs.

Unite is launching a billboard campaign in six Scottish constituencies aimed at persuading Keir Starmer to commit more investment to north-east Scotland, the centre of the offshore oil and gas industry.

Unless Labour can show it will protect jobs and communities, it should be willing to continue issuing new licences for oil and gas exploration, Unite argues. The slogan for the union’s campaign is “No Ban Without A Plan”.

“They are at risk of becoming the coal miners of our generation,” Graham said. “We only have to look at what’s happened in the coal towns. I’m the daughter of mining stock – my family’s from the north-east, lots of them were miners. And it’s decimation in some of these places. They’ve never recovered. And the difference is, we know this time – we can see it coming down the track.”

The shadow climate secretary, Ed Miliband, has promised to base Labour’s planned state-backed green power firm, Great British Energy, in Scotland. And part of Labour’s £7bn “wealth fund” will be earmarked for wind power.

But Unite, which was Labour’s biggest donor in the 2019 general election, wants to see more specific pledges of investment in green technologies in north-east Scotland.

Graham said Unite research suggested that £6bn over six years would be needed to kickstart wind turbine manufacture in the region. “You should not be letting go of one rope before you’ve got hold of another,” she said. “My main thing is that I cannot allow these workers to be sacrificed on the altar of net zero.”

She claimed a clear offer on jobs and investment would help Labour make much-hoped-for gains in Scotland. “Labour would be the heroes of the hour. Why wouldn’t you do that?” she said.

Most of the seats in which Unite is running its No Ban Without a Plan campaign – or their predecessors before boundary changes – are held by the SNP with comfortable majorities. Two are Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, and Aberdeen North.

Despite the imperative for the UK to move away from fossil fuels, some unions expressed alarm last year when Labour first announced that it would not issue new licences for oil and gas exploration. The GMB general secretary, Gary Smith, called the decision naive. Starmer responded by saying to the GMB’s conference last June: “What I will never let happen is a repeat of what happened in coal mining where an industry came to an end and nobody had planned for the future.”

But Labour went on to drop its £28bn-a-year green investment pledge, sparking concerns among unions and environmental campaigners about whether it had set aside sufficient resources to smooth the transition to a net-zero economy.

Chaitanya Kumar, of the New Economics Foundation thinktank, said: “The oil and gas industry is ultimately a threat to us all and needs to be scaled down considerably. But ensuring a fair transition deal for workers is non-negotiable. Fortunately, Labour still have the time to come up with a plan without compromising on its commitment to stop new drilling of fossil fuels.”

The campaign group Uplift, which calls for a “rapid and fair” transition away from oil and gas in the UK, estimates that the sector supports 200,000 jobs either directly or indirectly, in the supply chain – a third fewer than a decade ago, as output has declined over time.

Uplift director Tessa Khan said any government should work with local communities to manage the shift away from fossil fuels. “This part of the climate energy transition is going to require a huge amount of industrial change, and we absolutely cannot afford to victimise or throw communities under the bus,” she said.

A Labour source said: “Labour has a non-negotiable commitment to a proud future for the North Sea. We will deliver the most significant investment in the North Sea in a generation as we pursue our mission for energy independence and lower bills.

“If the Conservatives in Westminster and the SNP in Holyrood are re-elected they will continue to sell out workers and communities by leaving the industry without a plan for the future, as they have done for the last 14 years.”

Graham has made workplace battles on pay and conditions, rather than internal Labour politics, the centrepiece of her leadership since succeeding Len McCluskey, a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn, three years ago.

However, she has previously pushed for stronger commitments from Labour on protecting jobs in the steel sector, and she attended a crunch meeting this week on the party’s policy on workers’ rights.

Jamie Peters, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “Two things are clear as we head towards the next general election. Firstly, any incoming government must accelerate our shift to a clean energy system, including no new oil and gas in the North Sea. This is the bottom line if we’re to meet our climate goals and stem the very worst of climate breakdown.

“And secondly, the transition must be designed in a way that’s fair, with workers and new jobs in emerging green industries at its heart, ensuring that no one gets left behind as we build a brighter future. What we’re yet to see is a plan for a cleaner Britain that’s equal parts rapid, ambitious and fair.”