Search Results for: feed

It’s time to move the Brexit spotlight. Its focus on Theresa May’s deal has thoroughly exposed the bankruptcy of the British Prime Minister’s proposal and left the government frantically planning to minimise the chaos of a no-deal Brexit.

But Opposition Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn is so wedded to his revolutionary socialist ideology that he is making as big a contribution to the national crisis as the conservative government.

The British House of Commons is divided—and in the strangest of ways. The vast majority of its members voted to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum.  And, if the truth be known, would probably vote the same again. But in both parties there are powerful minorities in favour of Brexit, and they are determining their respective  party’s actions.

The Labour Party’s Brexiteer wing is much smaller than that of the conservatives. But it is led by party leader Corbyn.  He is a lifelong Eurosceptic. He voted against Britain joining the European Economic Community in 1973 and campaigned to leave it in the 1975 referendum. And since then Corbyn has voted against every European treaty, law and regulation that has come before the British parliament.

In the 2016 referendum he was faced with a dilemma. He was leader of a party whose clearly stated policy was to remain in the EU but he was personally opposed to membership of what he regarded as a neo-liberal capitalist club. So Corbyn did the dishonest thing.  He paid lip service to party policy but conducted a campaign that was so ineffectual that he might as well have been sharing a platform with staunch Brexiteers Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.

Since the Labour Party’s autumn conference it has been overwhelming official party policy to push for a second referendum on EU membership. Corbyn has ignored every opportunity to fulfil this policy decision and focused instead on the impossible task of forcing a general election.

Jeremy Corbyn knows full well that a second referendum could very easily lead to a Brexit reversal. That is the last thing he wants. He could have secured a second referendum this week by tabling a vote of no confidence in the government.  But instead he tabled an ineffectual no confidence vote in the prime minister.

Some call it the Chinese Marshall Plan. Others call it a dastardly plot for world domination.

The Chinese – with their easy facility for metaphorical phraseology—call it the “Belt, Road Initiative.” The term is a reference to the old Silk Road which stretched from East to West and dominated trade between the Orient and Occident from before Rome up until the 16th century when the Portuguese and Spanish discovered sea routes to America and the Far East. Those were the days when China was the fabled  world economic power house with whom everyone wanted to trade.

It was the land where an ancient civilisation had invented and developed essentials such as paper, compasses, silk, porcelain, gunpowder, moveable type, mechanical clocks, tea, iron smelting, bronze, rockets, the seed drill, and even pasta and the toothbrush.  There were no economists around to keep GDP records, but bean counting historians believe that in the early 16thcentury China produced 40 percent of the world’s wealth. This is roughly equivalent to that of Britain at the height of its empire or the US in the 20 years after the Second World War.

The Chinese see no reason why that trade—and their position in the world—cannot be revived by emulating the example of the silk road with an omnidirectional series of trade links and infrastructure projects using land and sea routes. The term belt in fact, refers to the land routes, either by rail or road. The term road refers to sea routes.  The project involves building political links in 71 countries, infrastructure projects to move goods and massive injections of aid and loans to primarily African countries to insure access to essential raw materials. The estimated cost is $1 trillion.

Critics say that trade routes need to be secured by military means which leads to military dominance. As proof of the danger, they cite the example of Beijing’s military build-up in the South China Sea. They also worry about China using its massive domestic market of 1.4 billion consumers to produce cheap goods that can be dumped on Western markets. Another concern is that easy Chinese loans are creating a debt trap which is damaging the world economy and, finally, its no-questions-asked aid and investment in authoritarian Asian and African countries is undermining the rule of law and governance in developing countries.

Supporters ask: Why can’t the Chinese pursue their national interests through the pursuit of peaceful trade?  And, can we stop them short of a disastrous military conflict? The 16h century was the Spanish century. The 17^th century belonged to the French. The 18^th and 19^th centuries were dominated by the British Empire and the 20^th has become known as the American century. Most people believe that our own 21^st 100 year period since the birth of Christ will be the Chinese century and nothing can be done to prevent it. Finally, the supporters of the Belt, Road Initiative point out that roads and sea routes run two ways and the internet goes all over the place.