It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Wednesday, November 27, 2024
Future of zoos decides first round of Law Society debating tournament
The first round of a national school debating tournament has kicked off, with students across Scotland debating whether zoos should remain open.
In the 25th year of the Law Society of Scotland’s Donald Dewar Memorial Debating Tournament, the first round debates saw the motion “This house would shut down all zoos” hotly contested by 64 secondary school teams.
Pupils in 33 teams will now go through to the second stage of the debate after impressing tournament judges with their critical arguments for and against the motion.
The proposers cited a better quality of life for the animals due to increased care and resources whereas those opposing the motion suggested zoo animals live in a unnatural habitat and should not be caged.
The Law Society of Scotland’s careers and outreach officer, Megan McDonald, said: “Congratulations to all of the pupils who competed in the first round. The judges were thoroughly impressed with the standard of debating, making it difficult to select those moving through to the next stage.
“Starting the tournament with two first rounds shows there’s a strong appetite for debating in schools across Scotland. I am delighted to see it going from strength to strength.
“The tournament is a fantastic opportunity for schools across the country to get first-hand experience in debating and an early insight into a career in law. We’re always amazed by the arguments pupils come up with and how much they improve through each stage.”
The second round will take place in early January, with 16 teams making it through to the semi-final before four teams compete in the grand final in June.
During a recent House of Lords debate, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle raised questions about the continued investment in Britain’s nuclear weapons programme.
Referencing a Financial Times article by Philip Stephens, she asked whether the Government might reconsider its stance, given the high costs and reliance on the United States.
“Should those difficult decisions—or at least, difficult considerations—not include giving serious consideration as to whether we should continue a nuclear weapons programme?” she queried.
U.K. sent Ukraine dozens of Storm Shadow missiles several weeks ago, before long-range strikes on Russian territory approved — Bloomberg
The U.K. sent dozens of long-range Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine several weeks ago, Bloomberg reported, citing sources familiar with the matter.
The delivery, which wasn’t publicly announced, marks the first shipment of these missiles under Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
According to Bloomberg’s sources, the missiles were sent before Washington and London authorized Ukraine to use long-range missiles against targets on Russian territory. The sources did not specify when the missiles arrived in Ukraine or how many were supplied.
Earlier this month, The Guardian reported that the U.K. hadn’t supplied Ukraine with Storm Shadow missiles for some time. Sources cited by The Times suggested the pause may have been due to low stock levels.
Ukraine’s Armed Forces reportedly used British Storm Shadow missiles to strike Russian territory for the first time on November 20.
Welsh Government confirms additional funding for credit unions
More funding has been made available to support credit unions across Wales
The Welsh Government has announced additional funding is being made available to strengthen credit unions across Wales.
An additional £408,719 is being provided to credit unions, which offer a vital safety net for individuals and families who need access to fair and affordable lending.
People on lower incomes in particular can find it difficult to access credit, with most options too costly or not open to them. Credit unions can help borrowers when unexpected expenses arise and having access to a small, short-term loan from a credit union can mean the difference between handling a crisis and facing mounting debt.
Accessible
The government says that by increasing the funding for the nine credit unions operating in all parts of Wales, it is making these services more accessible, so individuals and families can manage their finances without fear.
The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Jane Hutt, said: “Life can be unpredictable, and people shouldn’t have to worry about where they can turn if an emergency arises. Christmas can be an especially costly time, and I would encourage those struggling with their finances, who may be at risk from high-interest doorstep lenders or loan sharks, to instead consider their local credit union, which can provide access to fair and affordable credit.
“This additional funding will strengthen the support credit unions offer in communities across Wales, helping people not only manage today but also build financial resilience for the future.”
In the last two years, the Welsh Government has committed £1.2 million to credit unions to expand their lending by offering new ‘starter’ loans and ‘credit builder’ loans, helping more than 3,600 people access affordable loans for the first time
Smart Money Cymru
One of the credit unions who will benefit from the new investment is Smart Money Cymru, which provides financial services to people in the Caerphilly, Blaenau Gwent and Newport areas.
Its Chief Executive, Mark White said: “As community-based organisations, credit unions are there to help everybody, especially those struggling to access finance.
“The Welsh Government’s Loan Expansion Scheme is critical to helping credit unions like Smart Money Cymru Community Bank provide loans for people with poor credit profiles so they can rebuild their financial capability and start to grow a savings pot alongside their loan repayments.
“This is underpinned by our partnership with Blaenau Gwent County Council and the recent appointment of Councillor Jules Gardner as Credit Union Champion for the county with a brief to help tackle poverty and access to finance.”
The Welsh Government has also invested £637,000 in digital improvements for credit unions, ensuring they can offer online services comparable to those provided by banks.
This means that people across Wales have flexible, easy access to financial support.
To find out where your nearest credit union is and more details on how to access them visit the Credit Unions of Wales website.
UK
Buffer Zones: Time to Rethink Abortion and the Carceral State?
The Act expanded policing powers to restrict, monitor, and even criminalize protests and dissent. These increased powers directly align with the enforcement of buffer zones, reinforcing a system that prioritizes and reproduces state control over community autonomy and individual rights. Additionally, these expanded powers function in the context of increased investigations and convictions of “illegal abortions” in the UK. The carceral logics underpinning this enforcement thus reframe abortion as a regulated privilege safeguarded by the state rather than an inalienable right. This is not separate from the role of policing as a “protective” force – it (re)asserts the role of the state in governing “acceptable” abortions and in (re)establishing mechanisms of surveillance and disciplining “transgressive” bodies.
Historically, policing in the UK has disproportionately impacted communities made marginal, and extending these powers risks reinforcing existing biases and further eroding human rights. The application of stop and search, for example, is likely to replicate these patterns when used to police protests or enforce buffer zones. This not only further stigmatizes abortion but places additional burdens on those who are already vulnerable to over-policing. By expanding policing powers and creating new offences that criminalize specific types of protests, the Act exacerbates the punitive framework surrounding reproductive rights.
Carceral Logics and Reproductive Justice
The justification for buffer zones often draws on broader public safety narratives, such as protecting against disruptive environmental protests, which normalize increased policing in public spaces. However, the repercussions are significant, setting a dangerous precedent for policing dissenting voices in any movement intersecting with state interests, including reproductive justice. This extension of police powers—to restrict movement, limit association, and monitor gatherings—aligns with carceral feminist critiques, which caution against using punitive methods to achieve social goals. While these powers might protect some individuals in the short term, they also entrench state power, reinforcing the carceral state’s reach into private healthcare decisions and undermining feminist demands for reproductive justice.
Reproductive justice (RJ), which emphasizes equitable access to healthcare free from state interference, demands an acknowledgment of how expanded policing powers compromise reproductive rights. By intensifying state oversight within healthcare environments, the Public Order Act instead risks making abortion clinics more intimidating and less accessible to those already made marginal by systemic discrimination. This carceral expansion starkly contrasts with RJ’s call for community-led, transformative approaches prioritizing lived experiences over punitive regulation. Implications for Communities Made Marginal
Mehrotra and colleagues contend that neoliberalism, professionalization, and criminalization have narrowed the scope of social change to individual-level interventions. This shift prioritizes physical safety above broader structural changes, reducing the potential for systemic responses and instead contributing to the expansion of the carceral state and, thus, hyper-incarceration. This “fetishizing of safety” limits the focus to protecting individual “victims” from individual “perpetrators.” Prioritizing state protection over systemic reform, buffer zones reinforce an individualistic framework that neglects the root social and economic conditions underlying reproductive injustices.
A genuine commitment to ‘greater protections’ for pregnant people in England and Wales must begin with the immediate repeal of obsolete legislations from 1861 and 1967 that currently regulate abortion. Full decriminalization of abortion and a moratorium on any further criminalization of people for abortion are also imperative. Simultaneously, we must address the deep inequalities that communities of colour,migrants, and people living in rural areas—among others—suffer. Without genuine commitment in the form of targeted policies, funding, and structural reforms, inflating penalties and police powers is counterproductive, perpetuating cycles of inequality that do little to reduce the problems it purports to address.
Conclusion: Reframing Buffer Zones and Reproductive Justice
We argue that buffer zones are a form of “human rights penality”. While these are presented as a neutral or protective intervention in public space, they subtly embed punitive elements reinforcing carceral paradigms; in practice, they extend state surveillance and control, buttressing a system of regulation and containment. Rather than addressing the root issues, these zones risk legitimizing a framework emphasising punishment over transformative social change. This critique invites us to critically reflect on whether punitive approaches and carcerality align with the visions of reproductive justice, the pursuit of collective liberation and the worlds we aim to build.
Lucía Berro Pizzarossa is a British Academy International Fellow at Birmingham Law School and an Affiliated researcher of the Global Health and Rights Project at The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. Her project sits at the intersection of law, social movements, and human rights. She works in solidarity with Women Help Women and various feminist collectives in the self-managed abortion movement. She is one half of the collaborative writing/thinking project, Lucíta Nandarossa.
Rishita Nandagiri is a Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, King’s College London. Her research focuses on gender and reproductive injustices in the Global Souths. She is a Visiting Fellow at the Department of International Development, London School of Economics and Political Science, and serves on the International Union for the Scientific Study of Populations’ Scientific Panel for Abortion Research. She is one half of the collaborative writing/thinking project, Lucíta Nandarossa.
All four main parties in Wales can claim credit for devolution, says new book
26 Nov 2024 NATION CYMRU
Whose Wales is published by Parthian
Martin Shipton
All four main parties in Wales share the credit for Welsh devolution, according to the authors of a new book which seeks to unravel what they increasingly found to be a complicated story.
Alun Gibbard said: “We first collaborated on a Welsh language book called Gwynoro and Gwynfor [Gwynoro and Gwynfor] which was about the very personal battle between Gwynoro Jones and Gwynfor Evans in the Carmarthen constituency.
“That was personified by these two very strong individuals.They fought each other politically. They didn’t get on very well as individuals.
“Not only did you have the battle between the two individuals, which was quite intense and quite fraught, but that personified the broader battle between Labour and Plaid Cymru in the most bitter period in Welsh politics.
“The original plan was to bring out the book in English, but then we realised that the story was taking on a life of its own.
“It changed from the two individuals to the two parties, and from the two parties we extended it to every party that had been involved in devolution, not just in Carmarthen at that period, but from 1880 to the present day.”
Compendium
Gwynoro Jones, who was Labour MP for Carmarthen from 1970 to 1974, said: “The battle between the two parties was about who represented Wales – who spoke up for Wales most? Was it Plaid Cymru, since the days of [co-founder] Saunders Lewis, or was it the Labour Party of Jim Griffiths and all that?
“A lot has been written about devolution, but there wasn’t a compendium of the whole period. You’ve got plenty of books about Welsh nationalism and devolution, but what is the actual story?
“We had to go back to the 1880s – to the days of Michael D Jones [leader of the Welsh who emigrated to Patagonia] to the days of Cymru Fydd [literally ‘Wales to come’, a proto-nationalist movement from the late 19th century that included the young David Lloyd George ], then on to Keir Hardie [the early Labour leader who advocated home rule for Wales].
“We thought we’d finish around 1980 – 100 years – but as we were writing the book, the whole issue of what was happening to the Senedd flared up.
“Boris Johnson was trying to dismantle the devolution settlement. So we thought there would have to be two or three chapters in the book about what happened after the 1979 referendum [when plans to set up a Welsh Assembly were defeated by four to one].
“Who can claim they were part of that story? Four parties have played their part.”
Alun Gibbard and Gwynoro Jones
Gibbard said :”At different times, different parties have taken over. There have been overlaps. At the time we were putting the book together, there was the whole thing about the Assembly celebrating 20 years.
“We saw a few comments saying that Welsh politics was celebrating its 20th anniversary. Whoa – hang on! Welsh politics wasn’t celebrating 20 years. You could go back further than 1880.”
Jones said: “The whole issue of home rule goes back to the 1880s.We’re arguing about it now, but they were debating it back then.
“Another thing about the book for me was wanting to stop this nonsense that it’s all going to happen so quickly. Every few months, Gwynfor used to suggest that a Welsh state would be around the corner in three years’ ’time. He won [Carmarthen] in 1966, lost it in 1970 and then came back in 1974. It was only a matter of time now and there would be a Welsh state.
“Increasingly there is that thing with Plaid Cymru that wants you to believe that it’s quite easy to achieve. But it’s going to take possibly decades again. Yes Cymru doesn’t believe that – Adam Price doesn’t believe that – he talks of 10 years ’time.”
Independence
Jones pointed out that Saunders Lewis and Gwynfor Evans had never used the word “independence”.
Gibbard said: ”In terms of devolution, you’ve got a contribution from all four political parties in Wales over a period of time – but then on another level there’s the fact that there were deep divisions within those political parties.”
Jones said: ”The book reveals that Wales is very divided on how it should be governed. This goes back more than 100 years. Lloyd George thought he would get home rule. He was shouted down by the Liberals and he was hounded out of Newport at a public meeting. From there he forgot about the whole idea of home rule.
“The Labour Party believed in home rule under Keir Hardie and it was Labour Party policy until 1945.”
Gibbard said: ”If you add to that [Merthyr Tydfil Labour MP} SO Davies’ Parliament for Wales petition in the 1950s, which attracted the signatures of 250,000 people – that was huge. Compare that to the 18,000 members of Yes Cymru at its height.”
Jones said: “That’s the period when I first became politically aware. I was 13 in the mid-1950s.
“A quarter of a million signatures at a time when there was no social media and not even many telephones in Wales.
“Elystan Morgan [a former Plaid Cymru member who joined Labour and became an MP] told me he realised that in essence Plaid Cymru was a pressure group and not a genuine political party.
“He kept on telling me that what Wales needed was the organisation and support of the loyalty Labour has in Wales combined with the enthusiasm and patriotism of Plaid Cymru.
“Somehow those two parties have got to find some common ground somewhere. And it’s proving difficult.”
Whose Wales? The Battle for Welsh Devolution and Nationhood 1880-2020 by Alun Gibbard and Gwynoro Jones is published by Parthian Books at £14.99,
NORTHERN IRELAND ELECTION 'We couldn’t get a mortgage so live in a mobile home'
Niall McCracken BBC News NI Mid Ulster Reporter BBC Eoin McGovern and his son outside their mobile home
A man living in a mobile home with his young family says owning their own home in the Republic of Ireland “feels impossible”.
Eoin McGovern from County Cavan had a mortgage application rejected when his wife became pregnant, so they moved into a mobile home on the grounds of his mother’s house.
“I would just love for my kids to have their own bedroom. Being confined to a small space is very disheartening," he said.
Housing is one of the most hotly contested issues in this week's Irish election. Eoin McGovern's mobile home is on the grounds of his mother's house
The Ballyhaise native lives with his partner and two young children.
He said: “We had an initial mortgage acceptance offer from our bank, but then when my partner received her first maternity payment into our account, everything changed and the mortgage was denied.”
Mr McGovern added: “It was a very tough time, because we fell between the cracks. We couldn’t afford to rent and we’re above the threshold to qualify for social housing.
“The idea for the mobile home was a temporary solution until we both could start working again when the kids were old enough for creche and we would be in a position to re-apply for a mortgage, but it hasn’t worked out that way.”
The 31-year-old hotel worker was contacted by Cavan County Council and informed that without planning permission the mobile home was against regulations.
Eoin, his partner and their two children in their mobile home
“I don’t blame the council, I honestly didn’t realise you needed planning permission because it’s on wheels on my mother’s property," he said.
“The council could come tomorrow and take it away, I pray to God that doesn’t happen and I just hope we’re able to get a temporary planning exemption, just to give us some sort of chance.”
BBC News NI contacted Cavan Council but a spokesperson said it did not comment on individual cases
Young people 'struggling' in Irish housing market
Although the circumstances will vary, Mr McGovern and his family aren’t alone.
The average price of a property in the Republic of Ireland as of September this year was €346,000 (£289,000).
In Northern Ireland the average price is £190,000.
James Spring is an estate agent in County Cavan.
He believes that with properties at this value, it’s not surprising it’s proving difficult for young couples to buy their first house.
James Spring is an estate agent in County Cavan
He said: “The number one story I hear is about mortgages expiring after six months, then you have to re-submit everything again and if your circumstances have changed, your mortgage offer can be in doubt.
“It’s why housing is such a big issue in this election because young people are struggling, they’re getting out-competed in the market and lending rules with banks seem to have really tightened up.”
Mr Spring said it is a "supply and demand" issue with not enough houses being built in the Republic.
Waiting lists
Waiting lists and social housing are also an issue. There are around 58,000 people are on the social housing waiting list in the Republic.
Martin Loughran is chief commercial and development officer with Tuath Housing.
The company has just finished an 11-storey apartment building in Drogheda, County Louth.
All the homes will be occupied by individuals and families on the social housing waiting list.
Mr Loughran believes a substantial increase in projects like this will be needed throughout Ireland to chip away at the waiting list
Martin Loughran is Chief Commercial and Development Officer with Tuath Housing
In Northern Ireland recently, news headlines have been dominated by the fact that a lack of access to water and sewerage systems is preventing people from being able to move into homes – including social housing developments.
Mr Loughran said there is a similar problem in the Republic.
He added: “There has been talk of setting up a Department for Infrastructure in the Republic of Ireland to support the Department of Housing in government, we would be supportive of that and I think it’s needed.”
Housing has been a key issue in the Irish election campaign
Many commentators will say the Republic’s ongoing housing issues can be traced back to the financial crisis in the late 2000.
This saw a reduction in public investment and it’s argued by some, that successive governments have struggled to hit housing targets ever since.
Whatever the cause, for people like Eoin McGovern and his family, they’ve been left feeling like the system is working against them.
He said: “If I had a time machine I would try and get a house before I had kids because when you’re trying to get a decent mortgage with dependents in this country, it’s nearly impossible.
“This election will come and go, but things are going to stay very tough out there for families like us for a while yet.”
UK
‘Assisted dying is going down to the wire – with most Labour MPs still silent’
Daniel Green
26th November, 2024
As Parliament prepares to debate assisted dying for the first time in almost a decade, it is clear MPs are deeply divided on the matter – and that the vote on Friday may go down to the wire.
Over the last few weeks, LabourList has been talking to MPs and trawling through their feeds to update our tracker of how those on the government benches will vote on this most important of subjects.
While there are strong voices on both sides, one of the most striking aspects of the debate is the fact the majority of Labour MPs remain either undecided or publicly silent on the matter, even with days to go.
That time spent making final decisions is perhaps unsurprising given how significant the question is before MPs in a free vote, but it does leave the result of Friday’s second reading all the more unpredictable.
Some of those voting against the bill have made the case that those that remain undecided at this stage will inevitably opt for the status quo and defeat it.
Yet there are others in the opposing camp making the opposite case, suggesting some currently silent MPs will vote ‘aye’ to allow the debate to continue, backing the bill to ensure it undergoes greater scrutiny.
MPs ‘incredibly worried’ about loopholes
Antonia Bance. Photo: UK Parliament
Tipton and Wednesbury MP Antonia Bance is among the Labour MPs opposing the bill. She claimed many of her colleagues were “incredibly worried” about loopholes in the bill and the potential for coercion.
She told LabourList: “We all know the NHS is on its knees and palliative care isn’t available to everyone who needs it. We were elected to fix the NHS – and lots of us think that should be our priority, just six months since the election campaign.
“It’s clear that the process of a private members’ bill means this bill will make for bad law – it will be rushed through with little scrutiny or chance for amendment. For all these reasons, many Labour MPs will vote against.”
Bance’s concern is around how the bill might affect disabled people, and highlighted how disability campaigners, including Tanni Grey-Thompson, have made their concerns to Labour MPs.
She said: “It is clear that the definitions of terminal illness and disability may overlap, and that no matter the promises now, the international experience is that, once passed, the scope of the law is quickly extended.”
‘MPs going through the bill in a lot of detail’
Dunfermline and Dollar MP Graeme Downie, who is supporting the bill, said that MPs had done a significant amount of engagement locally with constituents on the matter, with several holding special surgeries to hear different perspectives.
“A lot of people who I know are going through the bill in a lot of detail, they are highlighting things they are worrying about. I think Kim Leadbeater has done the most incredible job of speaking to everybody and anybody about her intent behind the bill.
“It’s a process we’re engaging in. My view is that if the bill presented to Parliament on Friday were to go through all the stages, it will not look like it does at the moment. Because there is no whip, I think there’s lots of conversations to be had about how we can address individual concerns and how we can reach consensus.
“That only happens though if we get through a second reading, which allows those more detailed conversations to happen.”
Division on this issue of conscience has split the cabinet too, with eight coming out in favour and six opposed. While some have used the media to put their names to one side or the other, there are some who have opted to keep their position private, at least for now.
When I asked one government minister how they plan to vote, they quickly responded: “I’m following the Cabinet advice” – that being that ministers “should reiterate that this is a question for Parliament, on which the official government position is to remain neutral”.
That hasn’t been the case for all members of the government, however, with Wes Streeting expressing his vocal opposition to assisted dying, claiming that it would force cuts in other parts of the health service to fund its implementation, and commissioning work into the potential costs to the NHS of the legislation.
His interventions have ruffled feathers, including from party grandee Harriet Harman, who told The Observer that Streeting had “stepped over the line”.
However, one Labour MP told me the Health Secretary couldn’t be expected to be completely silent about their own views when they will also be expected to be at the centre of delivering the legislation.
“It’s absolutely right that the Secretaries of States, upon whom the vast majority of the responsibility would lie if this bill passes, make some comment. But also more importantly, it’s right that they prepare their departments for the outcome, whichever way it goes,” they said.
How might the vote go?
At the time of publishing this story, 75 Labour MPs had confirmed (either publicly or anonymously) they will be backing Kim Leadbeater’s bill on Friday, with 43 stating they plan on voting against.
Both totals are trumped by the number who have confirmed they are undecided – so far standing at 88 – and those who haven’t declared their positions, numbering close to 200.
These figures would change slightly when considering how some MPs voted when Parliament last debated assisted dying in 2015 (although an MP’s previous vote is no guarantee they will vote for this bill).
When adding those MPs to our tally, the totals would add up to 97 for and 70 against – demonstrating a more finely balanced picture between the two sides within the Parliamentary Labour Party.
While there is heated debate – and the i splashed on Monday on the headline “cabinet split over assisted dying as vote row deepens” – all the MPs LabourList spoke to suggested the divisions were merely temporary. They expect MPs to rally together following the vote.
With the vote just days away, both sides claim to have the wind in their sails. But it still seems too soon to say, with all signs increasingly pointing to a vote that will be decided by the smallest of margins.
Patriotic news channel GB News has encouraged president-elect Trump to invade Britain and make the country the 51st state of America as they continue to grapple with life under a progressive left government.
Darren Grimes, who campaigned for Britain to exit the European Union in 2016 in order to regain its independence, now believes life would be better if the country was gobbled up by Trump’s America which lies some 4,000 miles away.
Campaign group Stop Funding Hate posted a clip of the right-wing commentator suggesting that life in the UK has become so unpalatable since Labour was elected in July that he is now passionately anti-independence.
Another clip, posted on a nameless nationalist account on X, noted that the suggestion might sound funny, but it can’t be “any worse than being under Starlin Starmer”, in reference to the former Communist leader.
Patriotic to a fault, this lot, eh!
Britain Faces a Dilemma: Cozy Up to Trump or Reconnect With Europe?
Opinion Mark Landler and Patricia Cohen The New York Times Tuesday - 26 November 2024
When Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain joined President Emmanuel Macron of France in Paris last week to celebrate Armistice Day — the first British leader to do so since Winston Churchill in 1944 — it was a striking illustration of his Labour government’s desire to reset relations with Europe.
But despite the rich symbolism and the palpable warmth between two centrist leaders, the visit was overshadowed by Donald J. Trump’s victory in the American presidential election a week earlier. With his history of antagonism toward the European Union, Mr. Trump’s return complicates Mr. Starmer’s intention to “turn a corner on Brexit” and pursue what he called a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to rebuild ties with the rest of Europe.
What could have been an economically profitable, if politically delicate, bridge-building exercise for Britain’s Labour government now threatens to become more of a binary choice between the E.U. and the United States.
Closer British trade ties with Europe, warn diplomats and people in Mr. Trump’s orbit, could come at the expense of relations with the incoming American president, who is a confirmed Brexiteer and cheered when his last British counterpart, Boris Johnson, picked fights with the EU.
“If the UK re-engages in these political and economic ties with the EU, it makes it less likely that Trump will go for a free-trade agreement with the UK,” said Stephen Moore, a senior economic adviser to the Trump campaign.
“You guys have to decide,” he said in an interview, addressing the British public. “Do you want to be more like Europe or the US?”
For now, British officials reject that as a false choice. Mr. Starmer has balanced his diplomatic outreach to Europe with an assiduous effort to cultivate Mr. Trump. The two met for dinner in Trump Tower in September, during which Mr. Trump told Mr. Starmer, “We are friends,” according to a person who was in the room.
Peter Mandelson, a Labour Party grandee under consideration to be Britain’s next ambassador to Washington, recently said on a Times of London podcast that in the three-way relationship between Britain, Europe and the United States, “We have got to find a way to have our cake and eat it.”
Such an outcome, economists said, could feature advances on two tracks: With Europe, Britain could take more aggressive steps to smooth trade friction, like more closely aligning rules on agriculture, linking carbon tax systems, and allowing greater mobility across borders for young people. With the United States, it could pursue, if not a full-scale free-trade agreement, a partial deal that would cover strategically important areas like the digital economy.
A closer economic relationship with the European Union need not come at the expense of good relations with the United States, said Marley Morris, an associate director at the Institute for Public Policy Research in London.
“They’ll want to do everything they can to try to work collaboratively with Trump,” he said of the Labour government.
Yet even when Britain was more ideologically in sync with the United States during Mr. Johnson’s premiership and Mr. Trump’s first term, the two sides failed to negotiate a trade agreement. This time, Mr. Trump’s trade policy seems more focused on his plan to impose across-the-board tariffs of up to 20 percent on trading partners, including, potentially, the EU and Britain.
In that scenario, diplomats said, Mr. Starmer’s best hope may not be a trade deal but rather targeted exemptions from tariffs.
At one level, far-reaching tariffs by the United States on the European Union “could be an unintentional gift to the UK,” said Abraham L. Newman, a political scientist at Georgetown University. It would put a “lot of pressure on the EU to expand its market,” he said, “and the UK is an obvious opportunity for them.”
Tariffs push “them together in a way that they’ve been pushed apart in the last few years,” Professor Newman added.
But while Britain and the European Union could make common cause in responding to American tariffs, it is equally likely that a new wave of protectionism could divide them, diplomats said, particularly if Britain tried to cut its own deal with Mr. Trump that would exempt it from certain tariffs.
“If the UK did it alone, there would be a price to pay,” said Peter Ricketts, a former British national security adviser. “The US would demand concessions, like access for its genetically modified beef, which could create problems with UK consumers and would cause problems with Europe.”
Britain will not be able to lift regulations when it comes to trade with the United States while still complying with the European Union’s rules, said Mark Blyth, professor of international economics at Brown University.
“If you bandwagon with Trump,” Professor Blyth said, “you’re never going to get EU market access.”
That pressure could intensify further if Mr. Trump stokes new trade tensions with China. At a Group of 20 summit in Brazil this week, Mr. Starmer met with President Xi Jinping of China and declared afterward that he wanted “consistent, durable, respectful” relations between Britain and China.
But Kim Darroch, who served as the British ambassador to Washington during the first Trump term, said: “If the US gets into a trade war with China, they may well come to Europe and the UK and say, ‘You need to join us in tariffs.’ There are some really hard choices coming down the road.”
If Britain is forced to make that choice, some argue that it should throw its lot in with Europe. Trade across the English Channel is more than two and a half times greater than that between Britain and the United States. British exports to the EU totaled 342 billion pounds, or $433 billion last year, 42 percent of its total exports. Imports from the EU reached 466 pounds, or $590 billion, 52 percent of its total.
Rebuilding those ties would help recapture some of the growth lost because of Britain’s departure from the EU. A thicket of red tape, border delays and extra costs now ensnarl cross-channel trade. British exporters complain that they must monitor gas usage to comply with the EU’s carbon border tax. Shellfish exporters note that veterinarians must certify shipments of crabs and lobsters headed to France and Spain.
While the trade negotiations have so far been limited to relatively minor issues like accepting European veterinary safety standards, the British Chamber of Commerce has set out a long list of reforms that could go much further in smoothing trade.
Mr. Trump’s skepticism of NATO, and the growing belief that Europe needs to rely less on the United States for its security, is a further incentive to cooperate. Together, Britain and France account for half of Europe’s military capabilities, at a time when security and economic policies are more closely intertwined.
François Hollande, the former French president, said recently that Mr. Starmer “needs to position himself as a European leader.”
Drawing closer to Europe would not be easy for the prime minister, even without Mr. Trump. Britain’s Tory-leaning press remains openly hostile to the EU and will be quick to condemn his rapprochement. Labour politicians worry that a pro-Europe strategy could hurt the party with voters in the so-called “red wall” districts, many of whom backed Brexit but came back to Labour in the last election.
Britain is also instinctively reluctant to do anything that could jeopardize its “special relationship” with the United States, even if successive American presidents have seemed less nostalgic about it.
“I’m sure that for the next while, Starmer & Co. will do all they can to get a good deal from Europe, as well as the US,” said Peter Kellner, former head of the polling firm, YouGov. “But I think there may come a point where they can’t ride both horses, and they will have to choose.”
Iran Opts for Dialogue with Europe ahead of Trump's Return to Office
President Donald Trump shows a signed Presidential Memorandum after delivering a statement on the Iran nuclear deal from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House, Tuesday, May 8, 2018, in Washington. (AP)
It is difficult to predict what the outcomes will be of the discussions between Iran, France, Britain and Germany about Tehran’s nuclear program in Geneva on Friday.
Last week, the UN atomic watchdog's 35-nation Board of Governors passed a resolution again ordering Iran to urgently improve cooperation with the agency and requesting a "comprehensive" report aimed at pressuring Iran into fresh nuclear talks.
Britain, France, Germany and the United States, which proposed the resolution, dismissed as insufficient and insincere a last-minute Iranian move to cap its stock of uranium that is close to weapons-grade. Diplomats said Iran's move was conditional on scrapping the resolution.
Iran has been weighing its response to the censure, debating whether to increase uranium enrichment or by being open to the proposals expected at the Geneva talks.
The discussions may seek a new nuclear deal instead of the 2015 one with Tehran that is in tatters.
As it stands, Iran is likely to opt for negotiations instead of escalation due to a number of internal, regional and international reasons.
Diplomatic sources in Paris noted US President-elect Donald Trump’s appointments of officials handling Middle East affairs, underscoring their unreserved support to Israel and clear hostility to Iran.
These appointments may lead Iran to think twice before resorting to any escalation.
Even before Trump has taken office, his circles have said that the new president will take “several executive decisions related to Iran and that will be declared on his first day in office.” The decisions will be binding and do not need Congress’ approval.
However, Trump is unpredictable and the sources did not rule out the surprise possibility of him striking a deal with Iran related to its nuclear program and behavior in the Middle East. This means that Tehran will have to make major concessions, including abandoning its policy of “exporting the revolution”.
This remains a far-fatched possibility, however. In all likelihood, Washington under Trump will return to his “maximum pressure” policy against Iran on political, diplomatic and economic levels to make it return to the negotiations table and agree on a deal that completely ends its nuclear ambitions.
So, at the Geneva meeting on Friday, Tehran will seek to achieve two main goals: a nuclear breakthrough during what remains of US President Joe Biden’s time in office, and attempt to lure the European powers away from Trump.
The truth is that Tehran is wading in the unknown. One only has to go back to Trump’s past statements about how Israel should have struck Iran’s nuclear facilities during its October 26 attack on the country.
Trump has already shown Iran his hardline stance when he ordered the assassination of Quds Forces leader Qassem Soleimani near Baghdad airport in January 2020.
Based on this, Tehran is scrambling to avert a joint American-Israeli strike that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been dreaming of.
Iran is vulnerable now due to two main reasons: the Israeli strike in October weakened Iran’s air defenses and Netanyahu has said that Israeli jets can now run rampant over Iran without any worries.
And Tehran can no longer rely on its allied militias to threaten Israel with all-out war. Hamas in Gaza is no longer in a position to threaten Israel and neither is Hezbollah in Lebanon.
So, Iran now finds itself exposed and would rather turn to negotiations with Europe than risk escalation that would cost it dearly with Israel now that it can no longer rely on Hamas and Hezbollah.
Donald Trump has called for China to execute its fentanyl producers as he also pledged to impose tariffs on Mexico and Canada to crack down on drugs and illegal immigration
The tariffs, if implemented, could dramatically raise prices on everything from gas to automobiles.
The US is the largest importer of goods in the world, with Mexico, China and Canada as its top three suppliers, according to the most recent Census data.
Mr Trump made the threats in a pair of posts on his Truth Social site Monday evening in which he railed against an influx of illegal migrants, even though southern border crossings have been hovering at a four-year low.
"On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders," he wrote, complaining that "thousands of people are pouring through Mexico and Canada, bringing Crime and Drugs at levels never seen before," even though violent crime is down from pandemic highs.
He said the new tariffs would remain in place "until such time as Drugs, in particular, Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!"
Fentanyl pills seized by U.S. Custom and Border Protection officers. Picture: Alamy
Mr Trump also turned his ire to China, saying he has "had many talks with China about the massive amounts of drugs, in particular Fentanyl, being sent into the United States - But to no avail."
He added: "Representatives of China told me that they would institute their maximum penalty, that of death, for any drug dealers caught doing this but, unfortunately, they never followed through, and drugs are pouring into our Country, mostly through Mexico, at levels never seen before,' the incoming president complained.
"Until such time as they stop, we will be charging China an additional 10% Tariff, above any additional Tariffs, on all of their many products coming into the United States of America.
"Thank you for your attention to this matter."
A US Customs and Border Protection agent searches an automobile for contraband in the line to enter the United States. Picture: Getty
The Chinese Embassy in Washington cautioned on Monday that there will be losers on all sides if there is a trade war.
"China-US economic and trade cooperation is mutually beneficial in nature," embassy spokesman Liu Pengyu posted on X.
"No one will win a trade war or a #tariff war."
He added that China had taken steps in the last year to help stem drug trafficking.
It is unclear whether Mr Trump will actually go through with the threats or if he is using them as a negotiating tactic before he takes office in the new year.
Arrests for illegally crossing the border from Mexico have been falling and remained around four-year lows in October, according to the most recent US numbers.
The Border Patrol made 56,530 arrests in October, less than one-third of the tally from last October.
Much of America's fentanyl is smuggled from Mexico.
Border seizures of the drug rose sharply under president Joe Biden, and US officials tallied about 12,247 kilograms of fentanyl seized in the 2024 government budget year, compared with 1,154 kilograms in 2019 when Mr Trump was president.
Mr Trump's nominee for treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, if confirmed, would be one of several officials responsible for imposing tariffs on other nations. He has on several occasions said tariffs are a means of negotiation with other countries.
He wrote in a Fox News op-ed last week, before his nomination, that tariffs are "a useful tool for achieving the president's foreign policy objectives. Whether it is getting allies to spend more on their own defence, opening foreign markets to US exports, securing cooperation on ending illegal immigration and interdicting fentanyl trafficking, or deterring military aggression, tariffs can play a central role."
If Mr Trump were to move forward with the threatened tariffs, the new taxes would pose an enormous challenge to the economies of Canada and Mexico, in particular.
They would also throw into doubt the reliability of the 2020 trade deal brokered in large part by Mr Trump, which is up for review in 2026.
Spokespeople for Canada's ambassador to Washington and its deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland, who chairs a special Cabinet committee on Canada-US relations to address concerns about another Mr Trump presidency, did not immediately provide comment.
Mr Trump's promise to launch a mass deportation effort is a top focus for the Cabinet committee, Freeland has said.
A senior Canadian official had said before Mr Trump's posts that Canadian officials are expecting Mr Trump to issue executive orders on trade and the border as soon as he assumes office.
The official was not authorised to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Mexico's Foreign Relations Department and Economy Department also had no immediate reaction to Mr Trump's statements.
BBC
