Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
And politicians, remember the Euro? It was the end of the world as we know it according to Mandelbollox and B-liar. Oh yes, who said it was the end of the world as we know it if Brexit goes ahead?...
They don't know the word! See how many of the English that live there can get jobs? (all quiet on the Western front). Truth is they don't get jobs because of the protectionism.It's French democracy...
It's not just the willingness of French farmers or whoever to sell and our desire to buy it's the logistical issues with border crossings etc which look potentially hellish. It's also easy to just say 'ah well We'll grow/produce it all here' but UK production appears set to decline just when it needs to ramp up. If we're talking imports from further afield you've got reduced shelf life to consider, the environmental impacts and of course the removal of EU food standards that would be needed to make a deal with the US or Australia for example workable; frankly they can keep their hormone pumped cattle and chlorine washed chicken.
Of course it won’t stop selling if it can but a no deal will completely muck up the logistics and supply chain plus it’s an import so I fully expect prices to rise
You just don’t get it ?
Things will have to certainly continue if disruption is to be avoided and yet many call for a no Deal believing we can cope
Saying it’s easy to grow toms etc is brilliant
We haven’t got the farms FFS !
Apologies Col but I can only see price rises because of the nature of greed
Ellers I think under estimates the impact
Well if the disruptions are on the EU side (which according to most, will be the case) and farmers cannot get their produce here and we go elsewhere, then you will see a usual French surrender.
As for us growing stuff...The only reason we don't grow more is because we get it cheaper as bulk abroad. Plenty of space and new farms popping up to grow tomato's.
We all knew that there would be some changes and we will deal with them....We are British and know how to deal with shortages if it ever happened.
You can however commit to my question as you have been a champion of project fear on here.
So we can also ignore the ‘economists for Brexit’, all 3 of them? Great. The people in Frome’s article were mainly actually in the food industry.
But anyway, mock and ignore if it doesn’t suit you. As predicted.
My point is Frome, is that it will never happen.
People forget we keep most of the French farmers going. We buy more wine than anyone else in the EU. In fact we are 2nd highest world importers of the stuff. Do you really think they will stop selling it or if they try to cause problems just watch those French farmers strike.
That's not fair Sb. People do listen 'economists' and experts but it's a continual bombardment of 'project fear'. As the days get nearer the desperate the remainers are getting.
After a while you turn a deaf ear to it.
Funnily none of them mentioned it during the referendum and had to wait until now?
In that case we didn't get the proper info! 
Quick let's have another referendum like Sadick Khan says...oops.. what, you mean another vote that not only has a box for Chequers deal but also a box that says "stay in the EU".
mmm I wondered when that little weasel would try this.
People need to accept the will of the people and move on.
so will all those trucks bringing goods to the uk need permits as well
how many foreigners use the tunnel to travel to the uk
and i mean the ones driving not the ones hiding in the backs of the trucks
UK drivers could need permits to drive in Europe under 'no-deal' Brexit scenario
UK licences may no longer be valid on their own when it comes to driving on the continent if no deal is reached with Brussels.
17:28, UK,Thursday 13 September 2018
Image: UK drivers may need to apply for International Driving Permits in the event of a 'no-deal' divorce
The government has warned consumers and businesses to be aware of the potential for "inadvertent" data roaming, where a stronger signal from the Republic kicks in.
The papers also reveal:
:: Transfers of personal data from EU countries to UK firms and organisations could be restricted.
:: UK firms who are part of the EU's €10bn Galileo satellite navigation system could be cut out of existing contracts as well as barred from trying to get new ones.
:: Owners of legal firearms face additional bureaucracy if they want to take them to the EU, because the European Firearms Pass would no longer be available to UK citizens.
:: The Common Travel Area, which allows British and Irish citizens to live, work and receive welfare benefits in one another's countries, will stay in force
:: The UK Government will guarantee funding for all projects receiving grants from the EU's Regional Development Fund.
Prime Minister Theresa May and her cabinet held a special three-and-a-half hour meeting on Thursday, with ministers agreeing to "ramp up" preparations for "no-deal".
Downing Street said the government was making sure it was ready for "all possible scenarios".
"Cabinet agreed that securing a deal with the EU based on the Chequers white paper was the Government's firm aim and we are confident of success," a spokesman for the PM said.
"However, as a responsible government, we need to plan for every eventuality. The cabinet agreed that no deal remains an unlikely but possible scenario in six months' time.
"Departments have significantly increased no-deal preparations in recent months.
"Cabinet agreed to further ramp up no-deal preparations in the weeks and months to come to ensure the country is ready for all possible scenarios."
But Labour said no deal would be a "catastrophic" outcome and urged the government to "drop the irresponsible rhetoric and start putting jobs and the economy first".
"The cabinet should be planning to negotiate a good deal for Britain, not planning for failure or blaming businesses for the government's chaos," said shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer.
"The only reason the government is talking about no deal is because the Tory civil war on Europe prevents the prime minister from negotiating a good deal."
There was disquiet from business groups over the content of the latest technical notices.
The Confederation of British Industry said they showed companies would be hit with a "sledgehammer" if "ideology wins over evidence" and Britain leaves without a deal, while the British Chambers of Commerce said key questions remained unanswered.
how many foreigners use the tunnel to travel to the uk
and i mean the ones driving not the ones hiding in the backs of the trucks
UK drivers could need permits to drive in Europe under 'no-deal' Brexit scenario
UK licences may no longer be valid on their own when it comes to driving on the continent if no deal is reached with Brussels.
17:28, UK,Thursday 13 September 2018
You must log in or register to see images
Image: UK drivers may need to apply for International Driving Permits in the event of a 'no-deal' divorce
- British drivers could face the "extra burden" of applying for a permit to drive in the European Union in the event of a "no-deal" Brexit, the government has warned.
In the latest batch of papers outlining how a failure to reach a deal could impact on British life, ministers revealed UK driving licences may no longer be valid on their own for driving on the continent.
This is because the EU might not agree to recognise UK licences, a development which would require drivers to apply for International Driving Permits (IDP).
These cost £5.50 and motorists would be able to apply for them at 2,500 Post Office branches across the UK in the event they become a necessity.
If they fail to obtain the permit, British drivers face being turned away at borders or being hit with enforcement action. -
You must log in or register to see images
What the latest 'no deal' Brexit papers reveal
The government has released its latest batch of papers advising people and companies what they need to prepare for if there is a 'no-deal' Brexit
And in an extra layer of bureaucracy that could hit drivers, there are two different types of IDP. This is because different EU nations have recognised different conventions on road traffic.
So some journeys would potentially require both permits, for example if you wanted to drive into France and then Spain.
AA president Edmund King said: "This will be an extra burden for UK drivers wanting to take a holiday abroad.
"We envisage quite a rush on post offices next year for the £5.50 IDPs if no deal is reached.
"Hopefully an agreement can be reached to prevent further red tape and expense for drivers."
You must log in or register to see images3:33- The Department for Transport said it thinks up to seven million permits could be requested in the first 12 months after a "no-deal" divorce.
A total of 28 "no-deal" technical notices were published on the government website on Thursday, following the release of 24 last month.
As well as driving licences, the latest batch covers topics like roaming charges for mobile phones and the potential impact on passport rules.
The papers warn that UK citizens could be prevented from entering EU countries even if they have a valid passport.
Britons currently do not need to have a minimum or maximum amount of time left on their passports to travel to the continent, but this could change if there is no deal.
- Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab has called on phone companies not to impose roaming charges on customers under "no-deal".
Such charges were abolished in June 2017, but a failure to reach a deal would mean surcharge-free travel to the continent could no longer be guaranteed.
However, the government has said it would introduce a cap on charges if there is no EU agreement.
Ministers would set a £45 a month limit and force companies to send alerts to customers when 80% of that had been reached.
Vodafone, Three, EE and O2, which cover more than 85% of the market, say they have no plans to change their approach to mobile roaming post-Brexit.
- The Department for Transport said it thinks up to seven million permits could be requested in the first 12 months after a "no-deal" divorce.
The government has warned consumers and businesses to be aware of the potential for "inadvertent" data roaming, where a stronger signal from the Republic kicks in.
The papers also reveal:
:: Transfers of personal data from EU countries to UK firms and organisations could be restricted.
:: UK firms who are part of the EU's €10bn Galileo satellite navigation system could be cut out of existing contracts as well as barred from trying to get new ones.
:: Owners of legal firearms face additional bureaucracy if they want to take them to the EU, because the European Firearms Pass would no longer be available to UK citizens.
:: The Common Travel Area, which allows British and Irish citizens to live, work and receive welfare benefits in one another's countries, will stay in force
:: The UK Government will guarantee funding for all projects receiving grants from the EU's Regional Development Fund.
Prime Minister Theresa May and her cabinet held a special three-and-a-half hour meeting on Thursday, with ministers agreeing to "ramp up" preparations for "no-deal".
Downing Street said the government was making sure it was ready for "all possible scenarios".
"Cabinet agreed that securing a deal with the EU based on the Chequers white paper was the Government's firm aim and we are confident of success," a spokesman for the PM said.
"However, as a responsible government, we need to plan for every eventuality. The cabinet agreed that no deal remains an unlikely but possible scenario in six months' time.
"Departments have significantly increased no-deal preparations in recent months.
"Cabinet agreed to further ramp up no-deal preparations in the weeks and months to come to ensure the country is ready for all possible scenarios."
But Labour said no deal would be a "catastrophic" outcome and urged the government to "drop the irresponsible rhetoric and start putting jobs and the economy first".
"The cabinet should be planning to negotiate a good deal for Britain, not planning for failure or blaming businesses for the government's chaos," said shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer.
"The only reason the government is talking about no deal is because the Tory civil war on Europe prevents the prime minister from negotiating a good deal."
There was disquiet from business groups over the content of the latest technical notices.
The Confederation of British Industry said they showed companies would be hit with a "sledgehammer" if "ideology wins over evidence" and Britain leaves without a deal, while the British Chambers of Commerce said key questions remained unanswered.
Yes I am a champion
What food standards are we going to use in terms of regulation it will have to EU for 5 years at least
Ireland will get stuff into NI so the north will be served
The south as I see won’t cope
I agree farming in the U.K. has to be on the up something I am very passionate about
Financial aspects could be more difficult
My Uncle currently has a fleet of 20 tractors which he buys in new and then sells after 300 hours as they are worth more
He claims that the prices are already being hiked up on almost everything 12K on some Valtra tractors
It’s business and we in the U.K. are currently weak unfortunately why?
We sold out
That will some recovery if we do it
The remainers will have to have control imo as I still firmly believe the vote was a protest vote without any solutions. I fully respect that of course but big lessons will need to be learnt .
Project Fear has nothing to do with it when you are talking to people without solutions who current answer to everything is to blame others
No we are not we are British and used to be very good at things however I believe it will be a big shock to the population and I predict a massive backlash as soon as things look difficult.... bunting won’t cut it this time as the media will switch to pouring out more blame culture
I maintain we have lost something Col
Of course I can only hope we get it back but talk is cheap and society’s one fickle monkey currently
That's not fair Sb. People do listen 'economists' and experts but it's a continual bombardment of 'project fear'. As the days get nearer the desperate the remainers are getting.
After a while you turn a deaf ear to it.
Funnily none of them mentioned it during the referendum and had to wait until now?
Quick let's have another referendum like Sadick Khan says...oops.. what, you mean another vote that not only has a box for Chequers deal but also a box that says "stay in the EU".
mmm I wondered when that little weasel would try this.
People need to accept the will of the people and move on.
What Sadick is proposing probably would pass for democracy in Pakistan. Meanwhile the London stabbing count explodes as he sleeps
And you continue to predict the worst.......
As usual.
Can you, or any of the doom mongers on here explain to me how we ever managed before the all encompassing EU took control for a relative minute or two of our history?
project fear story of the day
is it only britain and the us looking at space
no wonder they want us to stay
No Deal Brexit Could Make It Harder For UK To Spot Things Falling From Space, Warns Government
Warnings also issued about mobile phone charges, driving licences and passports.
Erik Simonsen via Getty Images
A no deal Brexit could limit the UK’s ability to spot space debris crashing to Earth, the government has warned.
On Thursday ministers published 28 documents setting out the consequences of crashing out of the EU without a deal.
The warnings also addressed the validity of British driving licences on the continent, roaming charges for mobile phones and restrictions on travel to Europe.
As an EU member, the UK has access to the EU Space Surveillance and Tracking (EUSST) system which provides “re-entry warnings”.
But if the UK leaves without an agreement it would lose access and leave it more vulnerable to plummeting satellites and other objects, one of the papers said.
The government said Britain would however still receive some space, surveillance and tracking data from the United States.
-
The documents also said UK firms currently working on the EU’s Galileo satellite navigation system could be cut out of existing contracts under a no-deal Brexit.
Firms have already been warned they faced blocks to bidding for new work on the programme, a rival to the US GPS system.
Labour MP Jo Stevens, speaking for the pro-Remain Best for Britain campaign group, said: “Theresa May used to say Brexit wouldn’t be the end of the world - but actually it could be!”
jo stevens for pm
is it only britain and the us looking at space
no wonder they want us to stay
No Deal Brexit Could Make It Harder For UK To Spot Things Falling From Space, Warns Government
Warnings also issued about mobile phone charges, driving licences and passports.
You must log in or register to see images
Erik Simonsen via Getty Images
A no deal Brexit could limit the UK’s ability to spot space debris crashing to Earth, the government has warned.
On Thursday ministers published 28 documents setting out the consequences of crashing out of the EU without a deal.
The warnings also addressed the validity of British driving licences on the continent, roaming charges for mobile phones and restrictions on travel to Europe.
As an EU member, the UK has access to the EU Space Surveillance and Tracking (EUSST) system which provides “re-entry warnings”.
But if the UK leaves without an agreement it would lose access and leave it more vulnerable to plummeting satellites and other objects, one of the papers said.
The government said Britain would however still receive some space, surveillance and tracking data from the United States.
-
The documents also said UK firms currently working on the EU’s Galileo satellite navigation system could be cut out of existing contracts under a no-deal Brexit.
Firms have already been warned they faced blocks to bidding for new work on the programme, a rival to the US GPS system.
Labour MP Jo Stevens, speaking for the pro-Remain Best for Britain campaign group, said: “Theresa May used to say Brexit wouldn’t be the end of the world - but actually it could be!”
jo stevens for pm
Labour’s problem with Jews is getting worse
Brendan O’Neill
editor
The message is clear now: we trust you less than other minorities.
The left treats Jews by a double standard. And this week we’ve seen that made crystal clear. Compare and contrast what happens to people who criticise Islam and people who criticise the Jewish State. A couple of days ago, grouchy New Atheist Richard Dawkins expressed dislike of the Islamic call to prayer. It sounds ‘aggressive’, he said. He said that, despite being godless, he prefers the sound of church bells. He was instantly denounced as bigoted. Even racist. Prominent Corbyn supporters branded him far right. He was a fascist simply for criticising an aspect of Islam.
At the same time, precisely as these denunciations of Dawkins were taking place, Labourites were arguing that public life must find a way to accommodate stinging, even ugly criticism of the Jewish State. As part of the debate about Labour’s new code against anti-Semitism, some insisted that ridicule of the Jewish State must be tolerated because it is illiberal to ‘curb’ legitimate discussion in relation to political and ideological matters.
Why is open and free discussion important on Jewish matters but not Islamic ones? Why is it always Islamophobic to criticise the call to prayer or ridicule the Koran or question the wisdom of women wearing the veil, but it is not anti-Semitic to obsess over the Jewish State and write it off as evil, racist and nasty? Or consider how leading Labourites, including Emily Thornberry, responded last week to Donald Trump’s mild criticisms of London mayor Sadiq Khan for his handling of terrorism. Trump’s comments were ‘racist and Islamophobic’, they said. The accusation of Islamophobia made instantly when a Muslim public figure or an Islamic belief is criticised, yet when the Jewish State is demonised, as it so often is by the new left, Labour says we have to stop and think before we say it is prejudiced speech — why?
It should be clear to everyone by now that the left treats so-called Islamophobia more seriously than anti-Semitism. Or to put it another way, modern leftists and liberals are incredibly sensitive when it comes to public discussion of Islam, overly sensitive, to the extent that they convince themselves that any questioning of Islam or its adherents is borderline fascistic. Yet they suddenly become more measured – an unusual trait for them – when it comes to discussion of the Jewish State. One ideological outlook is off-limits, the other is fair game.
This pertains to the controversy over Labour’s newly adopted code on anti-Semitism. Following the exposure of numerous instances in which Labour figures, including Jeremy Corbyn himself, were found to have expressed or shared or commented favourably on explicitly anti-Semitic imagery and ideas, Labour has been promising to stamp out anti-Semitic thinking in its ranks. From shrill memes accusing Israel of joyously spilling the blood of Palestinians to a mural showing hook-nosed old men overseeing the world’s economic affairs (the one Corbyn commented on favourably), the socialism of fools has been evident a great deal lately in what passes for radical circles today. And so Labour promised it would boost its rules against anti-Semitism. Yet in the process it has found itself coming in for even more flak.
Labour has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) definition of anti-Semitism. This is the definition of anti-Semitism that is used by various governments, including the UK government. It describes anti-Semitism as ‘a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews’. It gives various examples of speech that can be considered anti-Semitic, including when Israel is referred to as a Nazi entity or when Jews are said to be more loyal to Israel than to the nation they live in.
And Labour has landed itself in hot water because while it has adopted the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism, it has changed or left out some of the IHRA’s 11 examples of what constitutes anti-Semitism. For example, Labour’s code says it is ‘wrong’ but not necessarily anti-Semitic to say Jews are more loyal to Israel. And it says comparing Israel to the Nazis is only racist if ‘anti-Semitic intent’ can be proven on the part of the person making the comparison.
Jon Lansman, a member of Labour’s national executive committee and key supporter of Corbyn, says Labour made these tweaks – others call them ‘fudges’ – in order to ‘protect freedom of speech’ on Israel. And here’s the thing: Lansman has a point. It is important that we maintain a distinction between hatred for Jews and criticism of Israel. That can be difficult these days, as anti-Zionism is very often a sly cover for old hatreds. Witness the way Israel is treated as a uniquely destabilising force in the world, as the puppeteer of the Western foreign-policy establishment, as a peculiarly bloodlusting state: anti-Semitic tropes refashioned as anti-imperialist critique. And yet we must defend the right of people to slam Israel without their automatically being written off as racist.
Must-reads from the past week
Neil Davenport Free speech
Why students *heart* Stalin
Frank Furedi Hungary
The EU’s shameful crusade against Hungary
Mick Hume Brexit
‘Get Boris?’ It’s another backdoor plan to stop Brexit
Joanna Williams Free Speech
It is now a thoughtcrime to criticise transgenderism
Related categories
Anti-Semitism
British politics
But there remains a question for Lansman and for others in the Corbyn camp: why is it suddenly important to know the true ‘intent’ of the speaker and to defend his or her freedom of speech when it comes to Jews or the Jewish State, where that isn’t important when it comes to Islamophobia, transphobia, misogyny?
We should be sceptical when Labour talks about freedom of speech, because this is a party that does not believe in freedom of speech. At all. This can be seen in everything from Corbyn’s threats against the tabloid press, to the threatened expulsion of female members who criticise transgender ideology, to, indeed, the instantaneous mauling of Dawkins by Corbynista Twitter. Yet on the Jewish State, and Zionism, and the question of whether Israel is evil, freedom of speech suddenly becomes important.
What Labourites are really talking about here is not freedom of speech, which, by its very definition, must apply to everyone, including people who want to ‘blaspheme’ against Islam or question trans thinking. No, they are talking about the freedom to hate Israel. The quite specific, seemingly specially protected freedom to say certain things about the Jewish State. And again that huge question, that question they cannot convincingly answer, looms into view: why the double standard? Why do you utter the words ‘freedom of speech’ almost exclusively in relation to hating Israel?
Many criticisms can be made of the IHRA code. It doesn’t account for the fact that anti-Semitism is increasingly expressed in an underhand way. And to those of us concerned about freedom of speech – all of the time, Mr Lansman, not only when someone wants to rage against Israel – there is indeed a concern that the IHRA code could be used to delegitimise normal criticism of Israel. And yet Labour’s bristling at the IHRA code doesn’t make sense from the perspective of Labour’s own views on prejudice and identity.
For example, Labour accepts the Macpherson definition of racism as any act perceived by the victim to be racist – except on anti-Semitism, where sometimes the intent of the speaker must override the perception of the victim. Labourites and other leftists continually blur the lines between legitimate criticism and prejudiced thinking, on everything from Islam to transgender – except on anti-Semitism, where suddenly rigid lines distinguishing illegitimate views (hatred of Jews) from legitimate views (hatred of Israel) are necessary. On anti-Semitism, it’s clear now: Labour applies a tougher burden of proof than it does to any other form of prejudice.
spiked is a longstanding critic of the Macpherson approach to prejudice, on the basis that it makes hatred such a subjective experience that almost any interaction can be branded ‘racist’, if the victim, or anyone else for that matter, feels it was racist. And spiked defends free speech for all, including Israel-haters. And including even anti-Semites (in that we don’t believe there should be state punishment of anti-Semitic thought – it is of course fine for parties and organisations to refuse to associate with anti-Semites). But Labour isn’t a critic of Macpherson. And it isn’t a defender of free speech. Except on Jewish prejudice.
Why? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that much of the left views accusations of anti-Semitism sceptically, and thus feels the need to devote more resources to questioning them than it would to any other form of prejudicial speech. The message seems clear: we are cynical about anti-Semitism; we don’t always believe it; we think it is sometimes weaponised to shut down our radical ideas; we believe Jews less than we believe Muslims, trans people, black people. This is the double standard in action. Jews are treated differently to everyone else. Jews are trusted less. If only there were a name for such behaviour.
Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked.
Brendan O’Neill
editor
The message is clear now: we trust you less than other minorities.
The left treats Jews by a double standard. And this week we’ve seen that made crystal clear. Compare and contrast what happens to people who criticise Islam and people who criticise the Jewish State. A couple of days ago, grouchy New Atheist Richard Dawkins expressed dislike of the Islamic call to prayer. It sounds ‘aggressive’, he said. He said that, despite being godless, he prefers the sound of church bells. He was instantly denounced as bigoted. Even racist. Prominent Corbyn supporters branded him far right. He was a fascist simply for criticising an aspect of Islam.
At the same time, precisely as these denunciations of Dawkins were taking place, Labourites were arguing that public life must find a way to accommodate stinging, even ugly criticism of the Jewish State. As part of the debate about Labour’s new code against anti-Semitism, some insisted that ridicule of the Jewish State must be tolerated because it is illiberal to ‘curb’ legitimate discussion in relation to political and ideological matters.
Why is open and free discussion important on Jewish matters but not Islamic ones? Why is it always Islamophobic to criticise the call to prayer or ridicule the Koran or question the wisdom of women wearing the veil, but it is not anti-Semitic to obsess over the Jewish State and write it off as evil, racist and nasty? Or consider how leading Labourites, including Emily Thornberry, responded last week to Donald Trump’s mild criticisms of London mayor Sadiq Khan for his handling of terrorism. Trump’s comments were ‘racist and Islamophobic’, they said. The accusation of Islamophobia made instantly when a Muslim public figure or an Islamic belief is criticised, yet when the Jewish State is demonised, as it so often is by the new left, Labour says we have to stop and think before we say it is prejudiced speech — why?
It should be clear to everyone by now that the left treats so-called Islamophobia more seriously than anti-Semitism. Or to put it another way, modern leftists and liberals are incredibly sensitive when it comes to public discussion of Islam, overly sensitive, to the extent that they convince themselves that any questioning of Islam or its adherents is borderline fascistic. Yet they suddenly become more measured – an unusual trait for them – when it comes to discussion of the Jewish State. One ideological outlook is off-limits, the other is fair game.
This pertains to the controversy over Labour’s newly adopted code on anti-Semitism. Following the exposure of numerous instances in which Labour figures, including Jeremy Corbyn himself, were found to have expressed or shared or commented favourably on explicitly anti-Semitic imagery and ideas, Labour has been promising to stamp out anti-Semitic thinking in its ranks. From shrill memes accusing Israel of joyously spilling the blood of Palestinians to a mural showing hook-nosed old men overseeing the world’s economic affairs (the one Corbyn commented on favourably), the socialism of fools has been evident a great deal lately in what passes for radical circles today. And so Labour promised it would boost its rules against anti-Semitism. Yet in the process it has found itself coming in for even more flak.
Labour has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) definition of anti-Semitism. This is the definition of anti-Semitism that is used by various governments, including the UK government. It describes anti-Semitism as ‘a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews’. It gives various examples of speech that can be considered anti-Semitic, including when Israel is referred to as a Nazi entity or when Jews are said to be more loyal to Israel than to the nation they live in.
And Labour has landed itself in hot water because while it has adopted the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism, it has changed or left out some of the IHRA’s 11 examples of what constitutes anti-Semitism. For example, Labour’s code says it is ‘wrong’ but not necessarily anti-Semitic to say Jews are more loyal to Israel. And it says comparing Israel to the Nazis is only racist if ‘anti-Semitic intent’ can be proven on the part of the person making the comparison.
Jon Lansman, a member of Labour’s national executive committee and key supporter of Corbyn, says Labour made these tweaks – others call them ‘fudges’ – in order to ‘protect freedom of speech’ on Israel. And here’s the thing: Lansman has a point. It is important that we maintain a distinction between hatred for Jews and criticism of Israel. That can be difficult these days, as anti-Zionism is very often a sly cover for old hatreds. Witness the way Israel is treated as a uniquely destabilising force in the world, as the puppeteer of the Western foreign-policy establishment, as a peculiarly bloodlusting state: anti-Semitic tropes refashioned as anti-imperialist critique. And yet we must defend the right of people to slam Israel without their automatically being written off as racist.
Must-reads from the past week
You must log in or register to see images
Neil Davenport Free speech
Why students *heart* Stalin
You must log in or register to see images
Frank Furedi Hungary
The EU’s shameful crusade against Hungary
You must log in or register to see images
Mick Hume Brexit
‘Get Boris?’ It’s another backdoor plan to stop Brexit
You must log in or register to see images
Joanna Williams Free Speech
It is now a thoughtcrime to criticise transgenderism
Related categories
Anti-Semitism
British politics
But there remains a question for Lansman and for others in the Corbyn camp: why is it suddenly important to know the true ‘intent’ of the speaker and to defend his or her freedom of speech when it comes to Jews or the Jewish State, where that isn’t important when it comes to Islamophobia, transphobia, misogyny?
We should be sceptical when Labour talks about freedom of speech, because this is a party that does not believe in freedom of speech. At all. This can be seen in everything from Corbyn’s threats against the tabloid press, to the threatened expulsion of female members who criticise transgender ideology, to, indeed, the instantaneous mauling of Dawkins by Corbynista Twitter. Yet on the Jewish State, and Zionism, and the question of whether Israel is evil, freedom of speech suddenly becomes important.
What Labourites are really talking about here is not freedom of speech, which, by its very definition, must apply to everyone, including people who want to ‘blaspheme’ against Islam or question trans thinking. No, they are talking about the freedom to hate Israel. The quite specific, seemingly specially protected freedom to say certain things about the Jewish State. And again that huge question, that question they cannot convincingly answer, looms into view: why the double standard? Why do you utter the words ‘freedom of speech’ almost exclusively in relation to hating Israel?
Many criticisms can be made of the IHRA code. It doesn’t account for the fact that anti-Semitism is increasingly expressed in an underhand way. And to those of us concerned about freedom of speech – all of the time, Mr Lansman, not only when someone wants to rage against Israel – there is indeed a concern that the IHRA code could be used to delegitimise normal criticism of Israel. And yet Labour’s bristling at the IHRA code doesn’t make sense from the perspective of Labour’s own views on prejudice and identity.
For example, Labour accepts the Macpherson definition of racism as any act perceived by the victim to be racist – except on anti-Semitism, where sometimes the intent of the speaker must override the perception of the victim. Labourites and other leftists continually blur the lines between legitimate criticism and prejudiced thinking, on everything from Islam to transgender – except on anti-Semitism, where suddenly rigid lines distinguishing illegitimate views (hatred of Jews) from legitimate views (hatred of Israel) are necessary. On anti-Semitism, it’s clear now: Labour applies a tougher burden of proof than it does to any other form of prejudice.
spiked is a longstanding critic of the Macpherson approach to prejudice, on the basis that it makes hatred such a subjective experience that almost any interaction can be branded ‘racist’, if the victim, or anyone else for that matter, feels it was racist. And spiked defends free speech for all, including Israel-haters. And including even anti-Semites (in that we don’t believe there should be state punishment of anti-Semitic thought – it is of course fine for parties and organisations to refuse to associate with anti-Semites). But Labour isn’t a critic of Macpherson. And it isn’t a defender of free speech. Except on Jewish prejudice.
Why? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that much of the left views accusations of anti-Semitism sceptically, and thus feels the need to devote more resources to questioning them than it would to any other form of prejudicial speech. The message seems clear: we are cynical about anti-Semitism; we don’t always believe it; we think it is sometimes weaponised to shut down our radical ideas; we believe Jews less than we believe Muslims, trans people, black people. This is the double standard in action. Jews are treated differently to everyone else. Jews are trusted less. If only there were a name for such behaviour.
Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked.
Those saying all the problems we will have going to Europe can multiply it 27 times the other way, we are still a major destination for people of all EU countries, we will not sit back and put up with EU red tape without making life very difficult for all the other 27 member states. We know this, they know this so will they be willing to see the self-inflicted chaos that will happen across the continent? There is brinkmanship going on and they know there are many member states in serious financial difficulty, I think as a collective they have far more to lose...
Daniel Hannan MEP (you know, the prominent Leave campaigner who, amongst many others, assured us that 'no one is talking about leaving the Single Market') has justified his support for far-right Hungarian leader Viktor Orban on the grounds that the EU shouldn't be able to dictate to member states over questions of internal policy. Well yes they should actually, Danny boy. The fact is, if Hungary (or Poland for that matter) were applying to join the EU right now, they would be rejected on the grounds that they fail the democratic criteria, and rightly so. Turkey, whose citizens we were told in the referendum campaign were queuing up to invade our shores, have zero hope of joining the EU under the far-right Erdogan regime, and rightly so. Both Hungary and Poland should be kicked out in my opinion.
My main reason for remaining a strong supporter of the institution of the EU is that it demands democracy and the protection of minorities in its member states. Flawed as it may be, it remains a positive (if faltering) force for democracy and human rights in a world that is sinking into a frightening alt-right morass.
Forget all the economic stuff, would you not accept that the EU has been a force for peace over the last 70 years?
.