I wrote this last night:
Sometimes I struggle. Some would say that was obvious. But what I mean is that sometimes I really struggle to understand something that is, apparently, obvious.
For example, our Cabinet apparently find it obvious that action should be taken over Syria. I cannot find a reason why they think that.
It's not yet clear what happened in Syria. I think it might be wise to find out.
And it might equally be wise to learn from previous gung-ho interventions. Need I list them all, down to the last laser guided missile? I doubt it. Instead, simply ask what problem was solved by such gestures?
Was Libya?
Or Iraq?
Don't mention Afghanistan.
Or ask whether the situation in Syria been solved by any previous intervention?
And if intervention is to happen, what for?
Regime change? Who, then, is the replacement to Assad?
To let establish a new government? What's our success rate?
And why should we choose?
Of course the Assad regime is deeply repugnant. I agree, entirely. And the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent. But the first rule has to be, do no more harm.
I can see no way we can in any way hope to meet that rule.
In that case I struggle as to why we should intervene because we add nothing for anyone by doing so that I can see.
I write this to simply register my protest at the folly of a bunch of people who I do not trust and who so lack faith in us, the people of the U.K., that they will not ask parliament to approve their actions.
All I do understand is that in my opinion unlawful killing might be too kind a description of their actions if they were to attack in that case. And for that there should be consequences.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
3rd May just round the corner. Make it hurt.
Leigh Bowden says:
“3rd May just round the corner. …”
‘Kin ‘ell you mean there’s another two like Theresa ?
I’m outta here. 🙂
Stop using council elections, where there are serious problems that need to be addressed as a litmus test of national government failure. Here in Sheffield an authoritarian, bullying city council is trying to crush all opposition so there can be no effective scrutiny of its dealings with a multinational corporation that is ripping our city apart. If our council elections are fought on national issues it is killing off what little remains of democracy. Surely multiple narratives can be discussed in parallel? If not despair and worse win.
bernard little says:
“Stop using council elections, where there are serious problems that need to be addressed as a litmus test of national government failure. ”
Absolutely agree there should be an understanding of the issues and the areas of responsibility of different ties of government.
Tribal party allegiance at local council levels is frequently inimical to local needs.
Come to think….. it doesn’t do much at national level either.
I agree and if anyone is killed have we committed murder? We are not at war with Syria. I suggest a purely cynical response to the real questions of inequality, social division e.t.c. The populist response will be a positive vote for the Conservative Party in May. Why are we not bombing Russia they ‘used’ chemical weapons in Salisbury so I am told.
It’s only possible ‘to understand’ if one realises the spiritual hypocrisy & ignorance of those who ‘lead’ the nation to kill and maime. They don’t remotely understand, let alone practise, the religion they profess to follow (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/24/theresa-may-let-us-take-pride-christian-heritage). Was it ever thus.
John D says:
“Was it ever thus.”
‘Twas.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Prime Minister is quoted as follows: “This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about regime change. It is about a limited and targeted strike that does not further escalate tensions in the region and that does everything possible to prevent civilian casualties” (The Telegraph, 14th April, 5.49am).
I am a great deal clearer about what the strike is not intended to achieve, than I am about what it is intended to achieve; or likely to achieve, or able to achieve.
Symbolic violence, I think
John S Warren says: quoting the Torygraph (The Telegraph, 14th April, 5.49am).
” It is about a limited and targeted strike that does not further escalate tensions in the region….”
Aye Right. So any response, in Theresa May’s thus stated terms, will be disproportionate because she didn’t escalate the tensions. Who makes up this stuff ?
“…..and that does everything possible to prevent civilian casualties……” Wrong Mrs. May. You do that by not bombing civilian targets.
And to pretend that she has done everything possible within diplomatic channels would be a joke if it was not criminal.
It was intended to make sure there was no evidence of whether ChemWeapons were used at all….
Unless you can come-up with a better reason why the attacks went ahead, even while weapons inspectors were on their way to the sites….
Surely not even those insane incompetents, May and Trump, would seriously consider a full-on attack on Russian forces?
Isn’t this good enough reason to get Corbyn into power?
Carol Wilcox says:
“Isn’t this good enough reason to get Corbyn into power?”
It would do for me, Carol.
And if the Labour Party had joined the Progressive Alliance instead of going it alone in GE ’17 he’d be in Downing Street now. Just Scot Lab not supporting Davidson’s Tories in Scotland might (I say would) have been enough to swing it. Across the UK as a whole it would have yielded a working majority.
If you go for all or nothing, nothing is always a likely outcome.
Or Andy, if Labour had changed the wretched FPTP voting system to PR in the 13 years it had power from 97 to 2010, we might get a chance towards having decent government.
But no,far from having the sense and decency to do the proper thing from a progresive PoV, they saw FPTP gave then a temporary advantage as, for once, it worked against the Tories, so they kept it. And Jeremy Corbyn still wants to keep it, apparently. So we are still stuck with a hopeless electoral system courtesy of a Labour party, that, as you point out, persists in adopting the Tories’ own crude and stupid ‘winner takes all’ attitude to politics, and refuses to engage in any kind of progressive coalition.
And it’s the same for Brexit. It’s absolutely obvious that the Leave campaign broke electoral law in winning the referendum, just as its obvious the damage leaving the EU will do the UK. So if Labour was a proper progressive party, they’d be calling for a 2nd referendum, at the very least.
But again, all they can do is make some noises about staying ‘a customs union’, and parrot the same crap about ‘the will of the people’ that the Tories do.
I agree
Can’t argue with that S of T D.
I suppose it’s unfair of me to criticise Labour for not joining the Progressive Alliance. I’m not sure they qualify. Across the board they don’t and never did.
Politicians on all sides will try and take a moral high ground if there is one. We talk of life’s injustices well born in Syria and living under Assad is right up there. Inequality in the West becomes virtually irrelevant by comparison. In truth though most of us just want to bury our head in the sand and hope it will all go away or at the very least not impact on our lives. The intelligencia will provide comment but it is meaningless in view of the entities involved.
I admit I cannot find an argument here
“I admit I cannot find an argument here”
Perhaps because it’s just ‘blether’. 🙂
Killing and injuring hundreds of civilians with chemical weapons is a horrible evil.
What I dont understand is why killing thousands more by crushing, incinerating, rupturing, dismembering, starving, precipitating disease and squalor… isn’t?
Does escalating international war get the victims back, or cured? does it stop anyone doing it again?
It has been predicted that as the truth closes in on a certain western leader, he will have to have a war we can all agree on. And the UK ALWAYS agrees with the US.
This has happened throughout history and doubtless we wont learn from this one either.
Killing ten of thousands of Britons with air pollution is a terrible evil too. I don’t see our politicians or the general public getting too worked up about that. Politicians seem to like to kick foreigners to divert attention from their own misdeeds. I don’t think you have to look further than that. It’s nothing to do with morality.
What would be the political consequences for Mrs May and her government if the OPCW concluded that no evidence could be found to indicate that a chemical or nerve agent attack took place in Douma?
Hard to tell
A doctor I know is worried about this. Their concern was simple: the television footage of the victims was inconsistent with a chlorine attack, apparently.
They did not say that did not mean there wasn’t one. It said that they needed more evidence. I think we all do
How dare she! How bloody dare she! Not in my name.
Andrew — Not all premiers have sided with the USA. When Prime Minister, Harold Wilson refused to join in the Vietnam war.
Did Boris Johnson give away freedom to act independently by persuading others to punish Russia for the Salisbury poisoning? Or was Mrs May advised that she could forget about a ‘good’ UK-US trade deal post Brexit, if she did not join in the attack?
Rachel says:
“How dare she! How bloody dare she! Not in my name.”
That’s part of the iniquity of it Rachel; It IS in your name and mine and I don’t approve either. And that’s putting it mildly.
There are no innocents in a democracy. We all bear the responsibility. ‘We voted for her’.
All of life is about resolving paradoxes.
I live as if I will last forever knowing full well I won’t.
I believe in government and simultaneously hate what government can do.
Dammit, I value some of the facebook groups I am in and dislike facebook.
What we have to do is look for the good.
As a Quaker would have it, there is that of God in everyone. But most would agree that in some cases it can be a bit hard to spot.
I was suspicious about the word feltching, I’m disgusted to learn it is a truly disgusting sexual practice. There’s a pattern emerging
Gone
Thanks
Once again we have undertaken a military action, without a well-conceived, persuasive political plan. This “strike” has been delivered as an “atom in the void”. It is not connected to anything that ensures the achievement – of what? It is now a hostage to fortune. We do not know, and may never know conclusively whether it even actually hit the intended targets (how could we, how will we ensure reliable access?). Still less, what do we know what the unintended consequences of our action may be. If there is any “collateral damage”? Whether the innocent may be injured or killed? Whether we are increasing hatred towards us among ordinary Syrians? How will we be able to investigate the truth of these consequences, and separate them from the false? We did not allow time for the world’s official chmeical weapons investigators (OPCW) , or opportunity, at least to explore access to the scene of the original crime, before acting. How do we now prove conclusively what we have done a) worked b) did not produce collateral damage or suffering to the innocent?
Cui bono?
Agree every word, Richard. I find particularly chilling May’s “This is the first time… ” line. How many more does she contemplate? As to the ‘timing’ – that it should happen on the day OPCW inspectors were expected to arrive is hardly likely to lend the three tiros action credibility. Deliberate or merely signature incompetence? It’s hard to guess. What is certain is that there will be more death and life-shattering injury today as a result and hugely increased risk of much, much worse to come and in more and more places. Where are the Kennedys and Kruschev, however flawed, when the world really needs them?
Richard,
You are an economist.
Find out what individuals and/or corporations have made a financial gain from these ‘wars’ in the Middle East.
That should provide a pretty straightforward explanation.
Please do find out – I’d like to know.
No shortage of info via Google. Mainly the arms industries, ofc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_military_contractors
The UK is right up there with the other main culprits:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38365529/from-egypt-to-saudi-arabia-heres-who-the-uk-is-selling-arms-to
Et al.
Might I request that people listen to this interview with Peter Ford, a former British Ambassador to Syria?
https://youtu.be/Jxs53OqAkN8
If asked to choose between Ford’s view, which is both rational and treats the “facts” to proper scrutiny, and that of a hapless Government with every appearance of engaging on a distraction strategy based on near zero verified fact, I know who gets my vote.
For goodness sake, let reason and judgement prevail!
I agree Andrew
I despaired at the BBC response – especially on television – which suggested he was a friend of Russia
Actually, what he actually said was that it made no sense at all for Russia and Assad to do this – and strategically I agree with that – so was it staged? To ask the question seems the least we can do
“so was it staged? To ask the question seems the least we can do”
Perhaps so, but given the limited nature of the actual military response, the likely limited effect on the Assad regime and the care taken not to engage with Russian assets, and given the complete lack of any long-term strategy for any involvement in the Syrian conflict by either the UK or US (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/14/trump-syria-identity-crisis-523103), and given Russia’s refusal to enable a full investigation – how plausible is such a staging? Just wondering.
I would say quite plausible
I do not follow your logic: the staging and the reaction are not linked
‘I do not follow your logic: the staging and the reaction are not linked.’
They are by the Russians, and some western commentators seem to agree at least provisionally.
The Independent reported (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/russia-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-douma-white-helmets-sergei-lavrov-a8303826.html), as other news sources did similarly,
‘The Kremlin has accused Britain of staging the Douma chemical atrocity to manufacture a pretext for Western military action in Syria and dupe the international community into turning against the Assad regime’s chief ally Russia.’
Ask yourself the simple question: why do that when your ally (Assad) is already winning?
What was the gain for Assad or Russia from doing this?
Precisely because I can see none I cannot be sure they did it
So you seem to accept that the staging and the reaction are linked. In fact Peter Ford is one of those who made the link in that BBC interview.
You say, ‘Ask yourself the simple question: why do that when your ally (Assad) is already winning?’
I have asked myself many such questions – but not exactly that one because I have not seen it suggested (maybe I missed it) that, as your question supposes, it was the Russians who ‘did that’ (i.e. the supposed chemical attack) rather than their ‘ally (Assad)’. The usual suggestion is that Russia is not in complete control of what Assad does (I think that is generally held by commentators) and further (however plausibly or not – and most things here, true or false, seem to some degree implausible) that Assad has previously resorted to chemical attacks and that it is for him an effective way of eliminating rebels and supporters who have survived conventional bombardment. Further, that his reputation is such that he is unconcerned about any more damage amongst his opponents in that area. So such cleansing before his forces take control of a new area seems to me a possible answer to your suggested question (applied to Assad not Russia).
I don’t claim to know the answers, but it does seem to me that many who dispute ‘official’ western explanations, especially once they have uncovered pieces of hidden or unnoticed information, are inclined to apply the ‘plausibility’ test less rigorously to their suggested explanation than to any they are calling into doubt. That of course does not necessarily mean they must be wrong.
Incidentally, Peter Ford, who is often regarded as being pro-Assad, rather than necessarily pro-Russian, seems in that interview to seriously under-estimate US (or at least Department of Defense) circumspection in relation to avoiding the Russians, even though that had been widely speculated even ahead of the actual strikes. He does come across to me as rather patronising of other judgements than his.
All I am saying is we do not know
We don’t
Not knowing is not a basis for action in this case
‘All I am saying is we do not know…#
I don’t disagree. In our ignorance at least three explanations are to some degree plausible. One piece of information we do now have is the limited and circumspect nature of the US/UK/French strike – at least on this occasion – which doesn’t prove anything about the chemical attack but just shows western disinclination or inability to use it to get heavily involved in Syria. If there have been no, or few, civilian casualities, many will see the destruction of chemical warefare facilities as no bad thing in itself – even if of debatable legality and dubious political and practical utility. But one wonders what will be the Western reaction if the independent investigations now getting under way do suggest, as a good many speculate (and not just the politically usual suspects), that the chemical attack was staged by Syrian opposition forces in Gouta. We are hardly going to start bombing them. Western governments would be bound to deny it.
Very interesting take on how the Syrian situation is basically an American mistake and they, and we, should stop digging – from a Professor at Columbia University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vwKk4pADCw&feature=youtu.be
As someone with vivid personal memories of the Suez Crisis, I had been in barracks next to 2 Para and we were on standby, this is a mad bad business for which there will be consequences, mostly unintended.
Let’s hope the Russian response is inimical to Mr Trump’s continuation in office, if they do have any kompromat as alleged. A downpayment at least.
Well, this is really a great opportunity for Putin to dig out the dirt. There surely must be some, but if not I’m sure that they can invent some;o)
Mrs May said “Last night British, French and American armed forces conducted coordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their use.”
Though chemical warfare is abhorrent, nuclear weapons are of course very much more deadly. They also threaten the annihilation of humanity and most other species. How can governments which maintain massive stockpiles of such weapons, and actively work to enhance their capability, be so self-righteous?
Let’s hope no armed forces are on their way to ‘degrade’ such weapons.
As the daughter of a clergyman, Mrs May will be familiar with “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Matthew chapter 7 verse 3)
Joe Burlington says:
“Mrs May will be familiar with “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Matthew chapter 7 verse 3)”
She may of course have not been paying attention in church.
She seems to have a difficulty with longer texts. Hence her repetition of soundbites irrespective of the question addressed to her.
Paul says:
“Let’s hope the Russian response is inimical to Mr Trump’s continuation in office, …”
Do you seriously think it would have played out differently if Hillary were in the White House. I don’t.
Donald Trump isn’t driving this. He doesn’t even know where Syria is FFS.
Go on Donald. Tell us which state Syria is in. He thinks it’s short for Syracuse NY. That would explain why he feels there’s an imminent threat.
I share your and other’s sentiments. Craig Murray’s latest is worth a look, if a little conspiratorial. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/just-whos-pulling-the-strings/
Googling “USA” & “overthrow” elicits some appalling statistics: “The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War” – Washington Post. And there have been other instances since then, with the UK acting as the faithful poodle (with missiles). Many believe most of this interference has been counterproductive. We refuse to learn.
G Hewitt says:
” Many believe most of this [US] interference has been counterproductive. ”
Only ‘most’ ?
That’s generous. To a fault I suggest.
NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT:
WTO Bollox story: we’ve been punked by an April Fools’ joke.
Sorry for going totally off-topic here but 2 weeks ago I offered to investigate some anonymous claims from the Guardian BTL forum that were cited By John D on April 1st at 2.45pm here:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/03/30/the-jersey-option-is-it-the-only-way-we-can-do-brexit-and-keep-the-uk-intact/
I am sorry to be reporting back late with this but I got busy elsewhere in the meantime. Be rest assured nonetheless that you haven’t missed anything much.
According to John D, the anonymous Guardian commenter “AntonyWycher” ‘says that he ‘consults at the Cabinet Office’ which sounds dubious needless to say. More significantly AntonyWycher asserted some rather scary Brexit claims to suggest that leaving the EU and falling back as a single nation into the World Trade Organisation (WTO) would effectively destroy the NHS.
https://profile.theguardian.com/user/id/17730600?page=3
For those that have no particular desire to know all the details I can tell you now that I have checked this out and these claims were rubbish and probably some sort of April Fools Day joke. There now, you can stop reading and move on to another comment or post.
For the benefit of John D, R. Murphy who wanted the claims checked, and anyone else that is mad enough to be interested I will explain. To begin with here is AntonyWycher’s comment:
quote:
“Bye bye NHS
At midnight 29th March 2019 the UK leaves the protection of the EU as a WTO RTA and has to fully comply with the WTO GPA, Government Procurement Agreement
This was signed by the UK in 1994 as the UK
The GPA covers 4 NHS areas that effectively privatise the NHS
NHS Strategic Authorities
NHS Trusts
Prescription Pricing
NHS Dentistry
Within months the NHS will be gone as the GPA covers ALL contracts from capital expenditure to employment contracts
We have just seen the watered down version as used by the EU with regard t the new UK passports, won by a Dutch company”
“The schedules are already agreed
The WTO GPA government procurement agreement
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/gp_app_agree_e.htm
The areas in Annex 1 of the agreement that have to be privatised, note HAVE
Department of Health:
28.11.1. DentalPractice Board;
28.11.2. NationalHealth Service Strategic Health Authorities;
28.11.3. NHSTrusts;
28.11.4. PrescriptionPricing Authority.”
unquote.
OK before dealing with the specifics the most important thing to know here is that there is nothing particularly scary about the WTO’s “Agreement on Government Procurement” aka “GPA”. You would have noticed that AntonyWycher cited this link (he was probably guessing that no one would actually go there or be able to comprehend it if they did):
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/gp_app_agree_e.htm
I went there and found that the GPA which covers government purchases / tendering for govt. contracts is essentially a voluntary agreement. Not all WTO members are parties to this agreement nor are they obliged to be. Of the WTO’s 164 members only 19 are parties to this agreement they are: “Armenia , South Korea, Singapore, Canada, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Moldova, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, China, Montenegro, Ukraine, Iceland, Aruba, United States, Israel, New Zealand
Japan, Norway and (last but not least): the European Union, including its 28 member States”.
Another 10 nations are in the process of accession and yet another five are semi-committed. The process of creating this agreement began in 1994 and wasn’t completed until 2014. As with all trade bureacracy jargon, the terms of the agreement are painfully unreadable and hard to follow so I will reduce its essence to these 2 quotes from the WTO site:
“the Agreement establishes general principles and detailed procedural requirements that the GPA parties are obliged to apply”
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/gpa_1994_e.htm
“There is no one mandated approach to coverage under the Agreement. In practice, Parties have freely chosen to define their coverage”
(see ‘click here’ at bottom of this page: https://e-gpa.wto.org/en/GPAInBrief )
So basically all 19 parties to this agreement have their own separate GPA where they can basically decide for themselves what areas of government procurement are covered and how they will be covered – so long as that conforms with the “general principles”. The “detailed procedural requirements” are purely administrative.
Now, as to AntonyWycher’s misleading comment:
“At midnight 29th March 2019 the UK leaves the protection of the EU as a WTO RTA and has to fully comply with the WTO GPA, Government Procurement Agreement”
This is total obfuscation and fallacy. The UK, as an EU member, is already party to the EU’s own separate version of the GPA and has been for some years. There is no obligation outside of that.
“The areas in Annex 1 of the agreement that have to be privatised, note HAVE
28.11. Department of Health:
28.11.1. Dental Practice Board;
28.11.2. National Health Service Strategic Health Authorities;
28.11.3. NHS Trusts;
28.11.4. Prescription Pricing Authority.”
This is crap. Nothing has to be privatised. Annex1 is merely a category of procurement that refers to the goods, services and construction services of ‘central government entities’. The whole thing, for better or worse, is basically about openness in choosing suppliers. It is not about the ownership of government entities.
That list and those numbers are from the list of UK ‘Annex 1’ entities that are already covered by the European Union’s GPA along with dozens of other government entities. In itself it means nothing.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/eu1.doc
“This was signed by the UK in 1994 as the UK”
This is an outright deliberate lie. The UK has done no such thing. The EU GPA includes the UK along with all of of the other EU members. There was never any UK commitment outside of that nor could there be.
“Within months the NHS will be gone as the GPA covers ALL contracts….”
Another piece of nonsense. If it isn’t outsourced (contracted) its not covered. Employment per se is not at issue and the GPA has nothing to do with the public ownership of the NHS or anything else.
“We have just seen the watered down version as used by the EU with regard to the new UK passports, won by a Dutch company”
This is an obvious red herring. It has nothing to do with the GPA as that applies to suppliers outside of the customs union and single market. The rules that operate within the EU have been with us for some time and do not involve the compulsory privatisation of anything.
John D. I do not blame you for being curious but it would appear that AntonyWycher is a time-wasting f#&!. Judging from this and some of his other comments it would appear that he finds amusement in being some kind of Walter Mitty version of a top-level insider (naughty fibs and all). In his own special way he represents the downside of internet freedom and anonymity.
Marco
Very much appreciated
And you research has helped me
So, my thanks
Richard, John and Andy,
I thank you for your variously kind and amusing replies.
As a final note on the fuss over Government Procurement we find that there is still a problem in reality although it is a lot more boring and far less sensational than AntonyWycher’s fictional account.
This briefing paper form Kamala Dawar of the UK Trade Policy Observatory (Uni of Sussex):
“Brexit and Government Procurement” http://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/files/2016/11/Briefing-Paper-8.pdf
gives us a more serious and credible assessment, sets out some of the issues and reveals that in essence the main concern is quite familiar with that being the chaos inherent in the legal, administrative and logistical vacuum that Brexit creates. To that end Dawar raises an interesting point in that EU rules currently apply but post-Brexit, government procurement powers devolve to the different countries within the UK.
That’s kind of interesting. Problematic at first, but the Scots for one, might like the idea in the long run. I should note, by the way that Dawar’s approach in this paper could be seen as a bit boringly conservative for our preferences. Not ‘conservative’ as in Tory, but kind of establishment bureaucratic. Which is not only conservative but arguably naive in the current climate (as the furore over the passport contracts would suggest). That said, nonetheless, he does provide a worthwhile perspective as well a useful source document.
I thank you again
I am taking a peripheral part in discussion with NGOs on procurement right now: I have shared that paper
Richard,
Knowing now that you are sharing that Dawar paper I will renege on my ‘final word’ commitment and say just one more thing about it.
In many ways it is good BUT it comes from a current, established, WTO compliant mindset where the idea of procurement “value for money” is essentially neo-liberal and microeconomic. It is microeconomic in the sense that it equates taxpayers and govt. procurers with consumers and businesses – so if a govt. dept. gets something cheaper from a foreign supplier that’s “value for money”.
In the real world governments, currencies and economies are generally national not global. From a macroeconomic, Keynesian, fiscal policy perspective one is wanting to use government spend to nurture domestic capacity and employment so the last thing you’d want to do is blow half your procurement budgets on foreigners and a leakage to imports. From a macro perspective that leakage does nothing to assist the balance of payments either.
The public mood has always wanted to put national suppliers first (now more than ever) so the wisdom of the crowd is macroeconomic. Then again the UK is a net exporter of services so reciprocal trade policies need to take that into account as well.
What I am really getting at here is perspective. Some of the technocratic perspectives in that paper are already obsolete. The technocrats just don’t know it yet, not fully. The old “free trade” consensus is walking dead and it is being (will be) been replaced by a realpolitik of the national interest.
That’s just something that I thought we might need to be mindful of.
Thanks
“[Kamala Dawar]… a lot more boring and far less sensational than Antony Wycher’s fictional account.”
You’re right there, Marco. I’ll have to come back to it. My eyelids are snapping shut like mousetraps.
:->
Dear Marco –
Thanks a lot for all your arduous research on our (my) behalf. Appreciated. The Internet is a confusing labyrinth of information, which demands so much time to check and re-check everything that’s published, from all sources (both MSM & alt media) no matter how authentic they appear to be.
In future I’ll stick to what I’m sure of – a decent cup of real coffee!
Yours sincerely – ‘confused.com’.
Marco, you’re a star!
A final modest ‘contribution’ from my corner – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLRMjDUbOA8.
You really would’ve thought that even (or especially) the bureaucratically conservative civil servants would have thought this stuff through. Isn’t that what they’re paid for?
At best it’s a a bugger’s muddle, isn’t it?
John D,
That’s interesting. So this professor is saying that the single market within the UK has, over time, become dependent on EU rules to maintain cohesion. I don’t think that most people have really considered that point (I hadn’t either). We all just take it for granted. Oh dear.
Marco Fante says:
“NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT”
Showing your age there, Marco. Another few years older and you might have said, ‘And Now….The next item.’ 🙂
“At midnight 29th March 2019 the UK leaves the protection of the EU as a WTO RTA ….”
RTA…?
Road Traffic Accident ?
The Brexit car crash. You are saying that Brexit is not going to be a car crash ? 🙂
“The rules that operate within the EU have been with us for some time and do not involve the compulsory privatisation of anything.”
Yes. Or do I mean ‘no’? The privatisers have interpreted EU rules to pretend obedience to a ‘higher authority’ when it suited them despite the obvious contradictions – like our former nationalised industries being owned by other EU state run enterprises.
Successive UK governments seem to have done their utmost to interpret rules to the detriment of the UK and blame the EU for it.
You probably deserve at the very least a strong cup of coffee for wading through all that garbage.
Andy,
Where AntonyWycher said: “WTO RTA” the RTA means Regional Trade Agreement but I really think that was another bit of jargon that he used to give the impression of being knowledgable and authoritative. In which case your joke is well justified.
Where I said: “The rules that operate within the EU have been with us for some time and do not involve the compulsory privatisation of anything.” In context I was referring to the EU Procurement Directives. As to the EU’s internal rules generally, I think the same could pretty much be said and your reference to the “the obvious contradictions — like our former nationalised industries being owned by other EU state run enterprises” is a case in point.
NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT: Well it is not really unrelated to the Syria business:
We know that the whole limited aggression against Syria (asnd Russia) is basically a Trump ego trip. He is showing us he is THE MAN. He is demonstrating that he is THE MAN who can make America Great Again. He is the man child showing the world what a clever guy I am and seeking the admiration and worship from the rest of the world. He is the ultimate deal maker who can outwit and crush any opposition because HE IS THE MAN.
And Mrs May needs to stay sweet with him. She needs to keep him holding her hand now that the UK has diminished and weakened itself by Brexit. She needs a trade deal , so she has to worship and admire THE MAN. She has to stroke his ego and give him all the support her diminished country can give. She needs the trade deals to show us all that Brexit means Brexit and is a red white and blue Brexit.
Which all ties in with Marco’s revelations. Our NHS is now a piece of carrion inviting the Yankee Pharmaceutical vultures and health insurance hyenas to rip it open and gorge themselves on its decaying flesh. And Mrs May’s support of the Trumpian ego trip is a signal to the vultures that they are welcome to take what they will from the corpse.
Transactional Analysis provides a useful insight into behavioural patterns – especially between high ego driven personalities such as these politicians. We shouldn’t be surprised at the outcomes. However, forewarned is forearmed – hence the continuing need for progressive activity at every level to counter – and hopefully to reverse – the inevitably negative results of their dysfunctionality. Democratically elected leaders should be subjected to psycho-analysis prior to assuming high office 🙂
This has made me physically ill the awfulness is like finding out your brother is a rapist.
What puzzles me is that the Russia have been saying that there is no evidence of poison gas despite what hospitals and Wold health organisation. Then Truump May and Macron bomb and missile blast what may be the evidence on the very day OPCW inspectors land in Syria.
If the Russians were to be confounded could our leaders not have found some other targets- like breaking up the runways and fuel depots for the planes and helicopters used by Syrian Air force and their lovely pals?
if evidence has been destroyed the the various missiles are the USA France and UK not complicit in covering up the appalling use of poison gases?
In other words whose side are they on? At best they do not understand the consequences and would you trust any government capable of such actions?
apologies penultimate segment should read
if evidence has been destroyed by the various missiles are the USA France and UK not complicit in covering up the appalling use of poison gases?
Ewan Hayes says:
“….if evidence has been destroyed by the various missiles are the USA France and UK not complicit in covering up the appalling use of poison gases?….”
And your point is…..?
Why else rush in over the weekend ? Retaliation hath no need of swiftness. Revenge (if called for at all, which I doubt) is a dish best served cold.
One chemical bomb dropped on Douma reportedly caused hundreds of casualties including many deaths. But the destruction of storage facilities in Damascus and Homs thus releasing tons of chemical weapons into the atmosphere with minimal casualties (3) surely begs a question or two.
Or Ewan covering up evidence that no such attack took place. Now that is a real motive.
What would Theresa’s daddy think of his naughty daughter. A week without television? The mind boggles.
There is no evidence that Assad has ever used chemical weapons on his own people. Mattis admitted recently that there was no evidence that the attack of 12 months ago was by Assad and the one in 2013 has been debunked by MIT professor Theodore Postol. There isn’t even a motive for Assad to have perpetrated this most recent one; just days after Trump said he was going to withdraw from Syria, how stupid would he have to be to perpetrate a chemical attack days later, with the civil war basically won? Ex ambassador to Syria Peter Ford has said the same about the 2017 attack. Isn’t it far, far more likely to be the “rebels” that did it? A false flag to draw an attack from the US which they’ve already seen work once.
Something else I never see mentioned in most places is the main motive behind wanting regime change in Syria in the first place (which the US has wanted for decades) – the Saudi/Qatari ambition to put a natural gas pipeline through Syria to the Mediterranean to supply gas to Europe, which would threaten Russia’s income from gas exports. Hey presto! There’s the reason Russia offered to help Assad.
Craig Murray deconstructs May’s “legal” case for bombing Syria. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/the-british-governments-legal-justification-for-bombing-is-entirely-false-and-without-merit/
His penultimate para asserts that there is no evidence that Assad has used chemical weapons in two recent cases. I would think it’s essential there should be good evidence, made public, so we can assess the case for or against chemical weapons having been used.
We do know chemical weapons were used by the USA in Iraq (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq) and that chemicals such as napalm, agent orange were used in Vietnam and they have used them against their own civilians as well: https://mic.com/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-about#.mvSWaHsvb Of course the USA (or UK or France) is not subject to International Law.
I am not as confident as Craig Murray as to absence of evidence
I simply say we don’t know
And I say that’s not enough to justify an attack
G Hewitt says:
“…We do know chemical weapons were used by the USA in Iraq …” etc….
And depleted uranium shells, bullets…whatever they are. The Cousins are utterly ruthless. and operate outside the parameters of international law because they are always ‘fighting for peace’ and the end justifies the means.
You must have seen at least one episode of ‘The A Team’ ? That explains the ethos.
Steve H says:
“There is no evidence that Assad has ever used chemical weapons on his own people.”
That may well be true for all that I know but it just looks so much like a piece of Russian trolling that many observers would dismiss it on that basis alone. That’s the problem for Assad, Having the Russians as an ally is a bit like having the boy that cried wolf as your publicist.
There are are no good guys in this conflict (or very few) and no one that you can believe either.
The attack was led by Trump who is currently desperate to convince everyone that the FBI’s investigation into his collusion with Russia is groundless. What better way to demonstrate his anti-Russian credentials.
Yep, totally.
I hadn’t seen your comment when I wrote mine (below) They were moderated at the same time. I am nonetheless pleased to see that someone else is thinking along the exact same lines.
Sorry
That’s the problem of my having a life
Despite what some say here….
Relax Richard,
I fully appreciate what you are doing. I wasn’t hinting or complaining. With Matthew K, I was merely explaining why I had expressed similar ideas without acknowledging him.
Matthew K says:
“The attack was led by Trump …” I don’t think so. I think The Donald is now (and has been for a while) firmly in the tent pissing out. His agenda from the campaign trail is now dead and buried.
Business as usual now.
Well for whatever its worth, here’s my theory:
Scraping over the truth or fiction of the chemical attacks is beside the point, relevant, may be, worthwhile in its own right but beside the point.
This episode, this missile attack is not about chemical weapons or Syria, it is about Russia and domestic politics in the USA. Most particularly the ever-expanding, seemingly unstoppable investigation into Trump’s connections with the Kremlin. Its about the FBI and Robert Mueller, Cambridge Analytica and Stephen Colbert and all of that.
In the beginning some people said that the public would grow tired of the story but no it has become the hit soap opera that has taken on a life of its own. The one person who has grown tired of it is Trump himself. He thought that he was the ‘Teflon Don’ but this story sticks and he hates it.
Trump, from the days of “The Apprentice” onward has become the guy that says: “your fired”. He loves firing people, regardless, and that includes nearly all of his White House staff, even Steve Bannon who was supposed to be the puppet-master. He could fire individuals involved in the Russia investigation (he has) but the investigation itself is outside of the White House so someone else will just pop-up to replace them.
So what can Trump do? He can fire Putin – and that’s what he has just done. That will show them. He can blast the Russians and their nasty little ally publicly and that will demonstrate centre-stage, loud and clear that the Russians are not controlling him. Its his best shot, well, for those purposes anyway.
Putin still has his job in Russia but he appears (appears!) to have lost whatever role he had as a puppet-master in the White House. But why? Well there was this idea that the Russians had some kind of dirt (“kompromat”) on Trump. But for Donald the Russians are no longer a potential source of scandal and embarrassment – they ARE the scandal and embarrassment. Whatever dirt they might have had on him has now become the lesser of two evils in the President’s mind as the Robert Mueller show marches on.
But then again Putin hasn’t had that much to say (yet). Maybe he’s in on it (?). In on the idea of staging an act that would show that Donald has stood in defiance of the Kremlin. Maybe that is what was meant by “a limited and targeted strike that does not further escalate tensions in the region” which is also a limited and targeted strike that does the Russians no real harm and puts on a show of allegiance for the folks back home in America.
Maybe.
Marco thinks:
“Most particularly the ever-expanding, seemingly unstoppable investigation into Trump’s connections with the Kremlin. ”
All of which accusations are coming from the security services in order to keep The Donald toeing the line. As long as he toes the line ‘they’ will keep the dogs off him.
Before the election nobody mentioned to Trump that the US is at war with the Russia.
“Putin still has his job in Russia but he appears (appears!) to have lost whatever role he had as a puppet-master in the White House. ”
But all that’s BS, Marco. That’s just the story line they are peddling it’s building the Putin story to discredit Trump. Isn’t it? Never forget that Trump said he was going to talk to Putin (man to man like) and that would simply never do. Russia has a role as the ‘enemy without’ which it is imperative to maintain. It’s (what supports) the economy stoopid.
Andy
“All of which accusations are coming from the security services in order to keep The Donald toeing the line.”
“That’s just the story line they are peddling it’s building the Putin story to discredit Trump. Isn’t it?”
I don’t know. If you can substantiate that idea then I will be one among many interested readers.
My theory isn’t about ultimate truths. Its merely about perceptions, narrative, counter-narrative and the things that one guy might do to try and manage those perceptions.
Oh and this thing:
” Russia has a role as the ‘enemy without’ which it is imperative to maintain.”
Sure but that doesn’t mean that Putin isn’t fulfilling that role. I remember Gorbachev saying that “we must deprive them of an enemy”. He was referring to Reagan and the US of course, and he had the right idea there.
But Putin is no Gorbachev. Putin is not a true statesman he is a a KGB bully.
Marco Fante says:
” Russia has a role as the ‘enemy without’ which it is imperative to maintain.”
“Sure but that doesn’t mean that Putin isn’t fulfilling that role. ” But that’s exactly how the American’s are using him. They can’t go all out against China or their store shelves would be empty. Russia is the only contender for the status of ‘enemy without’.
‘Terror’ as in ‘The War on Terror’ comes a poor second, though it has the economic advantage of arming, organising and bankrolling both sides, but the great disadvantage is that big military hardware has no place in this phoney war, so it can employ manpower and small arms, but not all of the industrial interests which are vital to the US economy.
“I remember Gorbachev saying that “we must deprive them of an enemy”. He was referring to Reagan and the US of course, and he had the right idea there.”
You make my point entirely there, Marco. The US economy had an opportunity to reboot when ‘The Wall’ came down, (to accept the Peace dividend) but the US government (or ‘Deep State government) elected not to do so.
” Putin is not a true statesman he is a a KGB bully.”……..
Trump is a ‘fool’. Theresa May is a ‘Bot’. Corbyn is a Jew-hating commie’ Netanyahu is a Nazi’ etc. etc. This is name calling. All these are individuals and they are not cardboard cut-out Aunt Sallies.
These are the caricatures drawn by the media for public consumption. Perfectly acceptable for political cartoonists to reduce these people to line drawings; not even remotely helpful to serious political debate to regard them as real.
We reduce international relations to the level of primary school yard discussion – ” who would win a fight between Batman and the Incredible Hulk” etc. (and would Batman have Robin onside …or not)
Yeah, but he’s is still a bully and he is still from the KGB. Whether that suits someone else’s narrative or not is by the by.
We apparently knew that Assad hadn’t decommissioned his chemical weapons programme, possibly because we continued to sell the pre-cursors to him
Rather than inform the opcw of that knowledge, we apparently allowed those weapons to be used on civilians
Rather than allow the opcw, who were on the ground, to investigate, we sent in cruise missiles instead, thus destroying the evidence and possibly contaminating large areas
We did this without recalling parliament and before parliament returned to session, also before the opcw had a chance to investigate
For all the criticism of Blair, he at least asked parliament and in fact established the convention that parliament should be asked. Even Cameron asked!
Our democracy is severely damaged and not fit for purpose, not just from this but from Brexit and the surrounding process that simply ignores all good practice and convention.
🙁
Rob says:
“Our democracy is severely damaged and not fit for purpose,…..”
That is a valid point with which I agree wholeheartedly. But, only a local difficulty.
The big problem is that the UN is powerless.
The BBC always tells us when Russia or China have failed to support a UN resolution, but generally neglects to mention when the US uses it veto. Which I believe it does frequently.
The US regards the UN as an advisory body and (as in Iraq) chooses when to be advised and when to act unilaterally.
The battle line was drawn long ago. We can be part the UN and agree to global governance or we can accept that the US rules the world. But will have to keep fighting to prove it.
In my opinion we in the UK are firmly on the wrong side of that line.
You mention Brexit; Brexit cements the bond. Bad move.
Lavrov said something really interesting at the weekend – misreported completely by the Guardian needless to say.
https://youtu.be/iNw5TjS63-w (from 9.50)
He said they the OPCW gave the Skripol samples from the UK to four labs for analysis. They then issued two statements – one for the public and one for the states concerned, both of which confirmed that the “novichok” type substance had been found.
However Russia has a copy of the actual analysis report from the Swiss lab. He read from the report – albeit in Russian translation. The report said that two compounds had been found. The first was a nerve agent identified by a chemical formula – A234, presumably what had been referred to as “novichok”- and this was found in very high quantities and was very pure. The second was BZ which is an incapacitator. It is used to incapacitate and works within 60 minutes and lasts for up to 4 days. BZ has been used by the UK, the US and NATO but not by Russia.
Lavrov makes two comments (i) if A234 “novichok” had been administered at such high quantities (given the time which had passed and the volatility of the compound) both victims would be dead and (ii) why was the presence of BZ not included on the report?
His conclusion was that BZ was the agent used to temporarily incapacitate the victims (and by implication that the “novichok” was a plant.
Interesting stuff – Theresa May should be shaking in her shoes if this is followed up by the media (?) and proves to be true. There are so many holes and inconsistencies in the Skripol story and taken along with the repeated claims by Russia that the recent chemical attack didn’t happen tends to show a pattern of behaviour…..
I am sorry – I think this an equally unreliable source
I am not pre-judging.
I do think lies have been told and much of what we do know makes no sense.
I think the point is that the source is an independent Swiss Lab. Instructed by the OPCW. Which could be verified.
Evidence is what we need. I hope we get it.
Has it been verified?
“I am sorry — I think this an equally unreliable source”
Which is a loaded way of saying it is an equally reliable source.
I picked up a copy of ‘Nudge’ the other day in the Charity shop. 🙂
“Has it been verified?”
In the current febrile atmosphere does it matter if it is?
What’s anybody going to do about it? Not a lot, is my guess.
In theory it could bring down May’s government I suppose, but I’m not holding my breath. If it gets hairy for her she’ll be firing off more missiles and wrapping herself in the Union Flag. (To cover her Stars and Stripes underwear. Modesty will, I’m sure prevail)
The bz Vs a234 issue is simple to explain given that the protocol is to send a sample, a control (another agent) and a black. The receiving lab doesn’t know which is which and the idea is to remove the possibility of interference. This suggests that bz and a234 could have been found, one being the suspect and one being the control. Putting that aside for now, the public report, requested by the UK and apparently the first of is kind, says the name of the chemical is classified, this despite may telling everyone it was novichok 7 a234, this in the public domain. The report confirms the UK findings but doesn’t state what they were, the only official evidence we have is from.the application to draw blood which doesn’t explicitly say it was definitely novichok.
These comments were made by Lavrov on Saturday and I have not heard anything further. The bombing of Syria is taking centre stage at the moment. If it is true presumably the Russians will be pushing for confirmation from the Swiss lab or to obtain independent verification elsewhere. It is unlikely that we have heard the last of this.
Theresa May says:
“We are confident in our own assessment that the Syrian Regime was highly likely responsible for this attack ….”
Oh! so that’s all right then.
Highly likely. Indeed !